Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Order for consideration read.

To be considered upon Tuesday 14th June.

INTERNATIONAL PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 14th June.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Income Tax

Mr. Rooker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income tax was lost as a result of the taxpayer leaving the United Kingdom in the latest year for which figures are available.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): The amount of income tax known to be uncollected as a result of the taxpayer leaving the United Kingdom was £1·2 million in the year ended 31st October 1975.

Mr. Rooker: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the latest report of the Board of the Inland Revenue claims a £14 million income tax loss because people are now untraceable or have gone abroad? How can we distinguish the real loss? Is it not about time that we introduced a system of tax clearance certificates before people are allowed to leave the country?

Mr. Davies: The figure that my hon. Friend mentions includes persons who are untraceable. They may or may not

have gone abroad. There is no way of knowing where they are. I have given the figure for taxpayers who are known to be leaving the country. There would be formidable problems in policing a tax clearance certificate system. There would be administrative delays at ports. My hon. Friend will know that one or two countries have tried tax clearance certificates and that they have not been very successful in practice.

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his proposed income tax cut remains conditional upon an agreement with the trade unions for stage 3 of the prices and incomes policy; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Newton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to decide the basic rate of income tax for 1977–78.

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects to announce a firm decision about the reduction in the basic rate of income tax from 35p to 33p in the £.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): I refer the hon. Members to my Budget Statement.

Mr. Latham: Does the Chancellor recall his answer to me on 24th March, when he said that a longer-term fall in the rate of inflation required a satisfactory stage 3? Since "Operation Scuttle" of stage 3 is now well under way, may we assume that the longer-term fall will not take place?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman is making all kinds of assumptions which have no foundation whatever in reality. The continuing fall in the rate of inflation depends on a satisfactory arrangement for pay after the end of stage 2. That is the joint objective of the Labour Government and of the TUC, and it was endorsed again yesterday by Mr. Len Murray.

Mr. Newton: Would the Chancellor care to tell us whether there is any truth in Press suggestions, which appear to have emanated from the Treasury, that he is thinking of reducing the standard rate of tax to 32p?

Mr. Healey: I think of little else, but I am unlikely to do it in the immediate future.

Mr. Newton: To 32p.

Mr. Healey: I have no intention of doing that in the immediate future.

Mr. MacGregor: Is it not fairly clear that the reduction from 35p to 33p will happen willy-nilly? Would it not be better to admit that now and so put taxpayers out of their uncertainty?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman is confused, or has allowed himself to be confused by his hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton). The Government have undertaken to reduce the standard rate from 35p to 33p if they get a satisfactory wage agreement, but they have no intention of reducing it to 32p.

Mr. Madden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most effective way to help those in most difficulty, particularly low-paid workers with families, is to increase personal allowances rather than reduce the basic rate of income tax?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that we increased personal allowances in the last Budget, and the effect is just being felt in the pay packet. The average family man will get an increase of nearly £1 a week, from this week, in take-home pay, with a rebate of £6.

Sir G. Howe: Does the Chancellor recollect telling the House in his Budget Statement that it would be imprudent to reduce the rate of income tax unless and until a satisfactory pay agreement had been reached? Does he also recollect telling the House that he intended to make those tax changes on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, after such an agreement had been reached? Will he now answer the specific question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton): is the introduction of provisions to reduce income tax from 35p to 33p still conditional on the achievement of a satisfactory agreement on pay? If so, when does he expect to arrive at that agreement and in what form? The right hon. Gentleman laughs nervously.

Mr. Healey: Perhaps I can answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's

innocent question. That was not nervousness, but the robustness with which I always find myself filled when I am interrogated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
It is still the Governmen's policy to make the reduction to 33p dependent on a satisfactory wage agreement. I have said that on many occasions.
I cannot say when the agreement will be reached, but I hope that it will be reached in time to move a suitable amendment on Report on the Finance Bill. The form of the agreement depends on the negotiations that are now under way.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the Chancellor agree that opinion inside the TUC has changed considerably since the Budget Statement? Therefore, on that basis alone, is it not now necessary to reconsider the whole position? If it is my right hon. Friend's desire, as I am sure it is, to restore confidence in whatever bargaining takes place in the formulation of a wages arrangement, would it not be better to announce now that the tax concession will be made available and in that way eliminate the uncertainty that is bedevilling discussions among trade unions about what constitutes a satisfactory arrangement?

Mr. Healey: The uncertainty is bound to exist until agreement is finally reached. Yesterday, the General Secretary of the TUC said that it was the objective and expectation both of the Government and of the TUC that an agreement would be reached. That is the only way to end the uncertainty.

International Monetary Fund

Mr. Hooley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the proposed increase in International Monetary Fund quotas.

Mr. Healey: The Interim Committee in April concluded that there should be an adequate increase in quotas, and urged the executive directors to pursue their work and prepare a report for the Board of Governors. The committee will consider this report in September at its next meeting. I hope that it will be possible for the executive directors to reach speedy agreement on recommendations which will further increase the ability of the fund


to contribute towards tackling the problems of recovery from the recession.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are two important points of policy? First, does he accept that adequate quotas should be allotted to some of the major oil-producing countries whose petrodollars are still creating problems? Secondly, does he agree that quotas should recognise the difficulties of developing Third World countries, which could be helped by adequate arrangements in this respect?

Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend will know that quotas were redistributed the last time that they were increased. It is not currently proposed that they should be redistributed. It is proposed that there should be a substantial increase in the size of individual quotas.

Mr. David Howell: As the IMF inspection team has been here this week, will the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm and reassure us that the IMF ceilings set in the December Letter of Intent remain at the heart of Government policy? Will he share his intentions with the House in respect of the Government's proposals for the next tranches of the IMF loan that was negotiated last December?

Mr. Healey: I am passionately anxious to answer those questions but as there is a specific Question later on the Order Paper relating to these issues, which I shall be reaching in a few minutes, I think that it would be discourteous if I gave the answer in reply to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dykes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he was satisfied with the latest series of talks with inspectors of the International Monetary Fund on the United Kingdom's economic progress following the loan facility in the autumn of 1976.

Mr. Healey: A team of IMF officials is currently in the United Kingdom for the regular annual consultations. It has never been Government policy to comment on the detail of these discussions, but I can tell the hon. Member that we and they have taken satisfaction in the dramatic turnaround in our economic and financial positions since the end of last year.

Mr. Dykes: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that despite the current rate of inflation of nearly 18 per cent., if a satisfactory pay agreement with the TUC is concluded in July the inspectors will allow the Chancellor to reflate the economy in a July Budget?

Mr. Healey: The hon. Member is mixing up a number of considerations. I made it clear in my Budget speech that I was being deliberately cautious at that time because I was not certain how solidly our balance of payments improvement had been established. The last figures for the balance of payments were encouraging. If that is maintained, I shall be able to be less cautious later in the year.
The critical issue for the IMF is the size of the public sector borrowing requirement. The Government have made clear in another place that although decisions taken in the House on petrol duty and VAT and the Government's decision to pay a telephone rebate in November have increased the PSBVR somewhat, that has been roughly offset by the lower costs due to a faster fall in interest rates than we expected. Therefore, we still have a margin for further expansion if we wish to take advantage of it when the time comes.

Mr. Gould: In the light of assurances to the IMF on the exchange rate, can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that no more money from reserves will be spent? May we also have an assurance that interest rates will not be pushed up to prop up the pound to a level that means that our export prices are less competitive than at any time since 1967?

Mr. Healey: I do not know whether my hon. Friend made a slip of the tongue, because interest rates have come down dramatically from 15 per cent. in October to 8 per cent. last week. I do not think that is pushing up interest rates. I hope that interest rates will not go up again. I remind my hon. Friend that the endorsement that he gave to the false report in The Sunday Times is responsible for making the retail price index 1½ per cent. higher than it might have been. In the four days following that report there was a fall of 10 cents in the exchange rate. Since the December measures the pound has been stable. The


matter has been thoroughly discussed in the House. I am glad to say that since the December measures the pound has been stable at a rate of 16 cents above the level it reached in that week. That is of great advantage to all men and women in this country and it is compatible with the continued competitiveness of British industry.

Mr. Marten: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree with the Secretary of State for Social Services in his adumbration yesterday of raising pensions November to November?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Castle: Will my right hon. Friend seize this opportunity to explain to the IMF what nonsense it is that we must count any increase in child benefit as an item of public expenditure, given the ceiling that has been accepted in the Letter of Intent? In contrast, any increase in child tax allowance, which has exactly the same economic effect, is not so counted. Will he explain the principles of the child benefit scheme to the IMF and achieve freedom to increase child benefit?

Mr. Healey: There is room for argument whether the classification for various financial measures should be public expenditure or tax. That is open to discussion. The important ceiling for the IMF is that of the PSBR. That is not affected by the question whether child benefit changes are counted as tax or public expenditure.

Mr. David Howell: Will the Chancellor now answer earlier questions about the Government's policy on the next tranches of the IMF loan negotiated last December? Will he categorically reaffirm that the IMF ceiling remains at the heart of Government policy.

Mr. Healey: I confirm that which the hon. Member asked in the second part of his question. Owing to the adoption of ceilings and the fact that we have kept well within them we have had a dramatic turn round in the value of sterling and interest rates. I wish to see that progress maintained. We certainly plan to take the next drawing available from the IMF, which will appear in the figures for this month or next month, but we shall

decide later whether or not to draw on future entitlement.

Sir G. Howe: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it is unworthy of him to blame his hon. Friend below the Gangway for the collapse in the value of the £ sterling last year and accept that that was due to the absence of any effective monetary or public spending guidelines during that period? Does he also accept that the collapse of the pound was due to his own expansion of the money supply at a rate that approached 30 per cent. last summer and autumn? Will he accept responsibility?

Mr. Healey: I really recommend the right hon. and learned Gentleman to read the speech made by Mr. Paul Volcker, the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank the other day, when he pointed out that variations of money supply from month to month or even over a period of months are not important. The important figure about last year is the year figure, where the increase in M3 was only 7½ per cent. If one were to believe some of the monetarist gurus—to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now, I am glad to say, paying less attention—one would guarantee single-figure inflation next year, whatever we did about pay policy. But I agree with what I suspect is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view—that anyone who believes that can believe anything.

Inflation

Mr. Viggers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the current rate of inflation.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest official figure for inflation based on a year-on-year calculation.

Mr. Neubert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest annual rate of inflation in the United Kingdom and West Germany, respectively.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): Over the 12 months to April the retail price index rose by 17·5 per cent. The most recent available figure for West Germany is for the 12 months to March, when the increase was 3·9 per cent.

Mr. Viggers: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the large number of elderly people whose lifetime plans for retirement are still being ruined by inflation? Are the Government using inflation as a weapon to redistribute capital or income, or is it just that Socialism does not work?

Mr. Barnett: I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that there are important problems for elderly people and many others too. If those people consider the proposals that the hon. Gentleman's party has in mind they will note that virtually every component in the 17½ per cent. price increase would be much worse under anything that the Conservative Party is proposing.

Mr. Neubert: What explanation does the right hon. Gentleman have for our rate of inflation still being four times worse than that of our West German competitors? Is the answer that whereas the West Germans have a social-market economy, we have the social contract?

Mr. Barnett: No. The explanation is nothing like so facile as the hon. Gentleman suggests. As I have said frequently, the reason for our bad performance is not something that started three years ago. We have had a bad performance for many years, and that is the basic reason for our position, both in terms of inflation and in many other respects, being worse than that of other countries. However, we are beginning to get the matter right. I have no doubt that we shall soon have our rate of inflation down.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a degree of insincerity in the submissions of Opposition Members—indeed, a massive degree? If they had their way and there was no control of prices, which is what they are always harping on, does my right hon. Friend accept that there would be a massive increase in inflation, which would hit old-age pensioners and the lower income groups more than anyone else? Does he agree that their attitude should be utterly condemned?

Mr. Barnett: I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Emery: Will the Chief Secretary tell the House whether he and his right hon. Friend still believe that we shall get down to single-figure inflation on

schedule, as was suggested in the Budget? Secondly, what steps is he taking to increase productivity within the nation, which will be the single biggest way to work ourselves out of this problem?

Mr. Barnett: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes, Sir." I entirely agree that the answer to our difficulties is to improve and increase our productivity. Indeed, we are working closely with both sides of industry to that end. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is for industry, not for the Government, to increase productivity—but the productivity of this Government, man for man and woman for woman, is also better than that of most of their predecessors.

Mr. Cronin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although some countries in Western Europe have more favourable rates of inflation than we have they have not had the disadvantage of the Conservative Government led by the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), which increased the money supply by 24 per cent. in 1972 and by 26 per cent. in 1973?

Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We started with an appalling handicap by having to take over from our predecessors.

Mr. David Howell: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the authoritative reports in many newspapers that one of the Government's proposals for trying to slow down the rate of inflation is to freeze nationalised industry prices? Will he give us a firm assurance that there is no question of the Government's contemplating a proposal of that kind, considering the Chancellor's robust views on the matter?

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman is trying hard to prove my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) absolutely right. It is remarkable coming from an hon. Member who supported legislation to do precisely what he is asking now. I see all kinds of reports in newspapers, some of which both he and I would not believe. I am not prepared to speculate on what may be in particular newspapers.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the current rate of inflation.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) and Romford (Mr. Neubert) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Roberts: How can the Government be so sure that the 14 per cent. increase in pensions will be adequate to cover the increase in prices November to November when the three-monthly rate of inflation is 20·5 per cent. and the annual rate is 17·5 per cent?

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman will know that what the Government have legally to do is increase pensions in line with inflation from November to November. Most of the November-to-November forecasts are about 13 per cent. The increase in pensions is 14·4 per cent. There is a positive margin over and above the 13 per cent. forecast, which will give pensioners a real increase in their pensions.

Mr. Powell: As the Chief Secretary told us earlier that the causes of Britain's unfavourable inflation experience at present have been operating over the last 70 or 80 years, will he explain why different periods in the last 70 to 80 years have been characterised by acute deflation, acute inflation or no inflation at all?

Mr. Barnett: The right hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question. I am happy to deal with it. As a matter of fact, during the course of that period reasons for inflation would have varied from time to time in line with the right hon. Gentleman's own views on monetary policy.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: In view of the Conservative Opposition's obsession with statistical extrapolation, will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that if the tendencies of the last 18 months continue Britain's inflation rate in a couple of years will be lower than that of most of our Western European competitors?

Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend and the House will know how interested I am in all kinds of forecasts. I am not prepared to forecast what our rate of inflation will be by comparison with everyone else's in the world in 18 months' time. What I can say is that at present

it seems that our rate of inflation will be considerably lower then than our present annual rate of inflation.

Mr. David Howell: While the Minister is thinking of a better answer to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) may we return to the pay deal aspect of inflation and the conditional tax reliefs that were touched upon earlier? The Chancellor giggles nervously when he is pressed on this matter, but does the Chief Secretary accept that it is very important that small businesses should know what the standard rate of income tax for 1977 will be? That is vital for their business decisions. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the Chancellor apparently will not tell us, namely, when we are going to have a firm decision about this, whether it will be in the Finance Bill, and what are the conditions now upon which the decision will be taken to reduce the rate of income tax?

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. Small businesses pay their income tax in respect of profits for this year in either 1978 or 1979. They will know long before then.

Exports

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of invisible exports in the first quarter of 1977; and how that compares with the first quarter of 1976.

Mr. Denzil Davies: First quarter figures are not yet prepared. They will be available on 9th June. In the fourth quarter of last year invisible earnings amounted to £3,742 million. That compares with £2,913 million a year earlier.

Mr. McCrindle: Has any estimate been made by the Treasury of the effect on our invisibles if banking and insurance were nationalised, as is desired by certain sections of the Labour Party? At the very least, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that certain individuals abroad, reluctant to deal with the Government or Government agencies, would be almost certain to transfer their invisible exports elsewhere?

Mr. Davies: The answer to the first part of the question is "No, Sir". The House knows the Government's policy regarding banking and insurance


nationalisation. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that banking makes a very small contribution to our invisible earnings.

Mr. Adley: As tourism plays such a large part in our invisible earnings, is it not unsatisfactory that Britain should be the only country within the EEC where hotels do not qualify for capital allowances? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that new hotel investment, including a company with which I am connected, is being hampered and, therefore, jobs are not being created because of this anomaly? Will he look at the matter again?

Mr. Davies: I do not think that the tourist industry is being hampered. In fact, the hotel market in London and in other parts of the country is booming at the moment.

Tax Reliefs (Small Firms)

Mr. Silvester: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those tax reliefs which are of specific interest to small firms.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Yes, I shall arrange to have a list circulated in the Official Report.

Mr. Silvester: Does the Minister recognise that, particularly in the case of small firms, it is important to take into account the incidence of local and national tax? In discussions on the review of local government finance, will the Minister bear in mind the effect upon city centre shopping centres and the employment that they provide compared with out-of-town shopping centres?

Mr. Barnett: I presume that the hon. Member is directing that question to some of his right hon. and hon. Friends who have not yet made clear their position on Layfield. I understand that they have in mind the abolition of domestic rates. That would make the rating situation particularly disastrous for local firms.

Mr. Torney: When my right hon. Friend considers tax relief to small firms, will he take into account the small business man in my constituency who, as reported in the local newspaper last night, has been asked to pay a total of £61 in value added tax on £760 for work that he did for a Leeds firm but for which he has

not been paid, because the firm has gone bankrupt? Is my hon. Friend aware that the spokesman for the Bradford VAT office says that the money must be paid on earnings that this man has not received. Is that not the height of stupidity?

Mr. Barnett: If my hon. Friend will let me have details about the case I, or one of my hon. Friends, will be happy to look into it. We have discussed this problem in the Finance Bill Committee. My hon. Friend would find it instructive to spend a little time upstairs with us. If he had done so he would have learned that the Financial Secretary indicated that we are looking at this problem to see whether there is anything that we can do.

Mr. Welsh: Will the Minister encourage small business expansion in rural areas particularly by the extra provision of starter capital? Would the Government be prepared to use a small proportion of the oil revenue for the growth of small firms?

Mr. Barnett: If the hon. Member looks in the Official Report at the list that I have given he will find 11 items describing what we have been doing to help small firms generally. We have done a great deal for small firms, but the source of revenue with which to help them is a different matter. There is no doubt that we have done a considerable amount to help small firms and businesses since we took office.

The list is as follows:

Corporation Tax

1. Small companies' rate of corporation tax (42 per cent. as against the general rate of 52 per cent.)—Section 95 Finance Act 1972 and Section 27 Finance Act 1976.

2. Exemption or abatement of apportionment liability of close companies

Paragraphs 1(3), 9(3) and 10(3), Schedule 16 Finance Act 1972.

Capital Transfer Tax

3. Relief for business property

Schedule 10 Finance Act 1976.

4. Payment by instalments for transfers on death, and for lifetime transfers if the donee bears the tax

(On transfers totalling up to £250,000, the instalments, if paid on time are interest-free)—Paragraphs 13 to 16, Schedule 4 Finance Act 1975.

5. Relief for agricultural property

Schedule 8 Finance Act 1975.

Capital Gains Tax

6. "Rollover Relief" for persons carrying on a trade

Section 33 Finance Act 1965.

7. Retirement Relief for an individual aged 65 or over disposing of his business

Section 34 Finance Act 1965.

8. Payment by instalments for owners of certain businesses

Section 57 Finance (No. 2) Act 1975.

9. Retirement Annuity Relief

Section 226 et seq. Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.

10. Cider Duty

Exemption from excise duty on cider and perry in respect of those makers who produce not more than 1,500 gallons a year.

11. Value Added Tax

The current exemption limit for registration for VAT is £5,000 per annum. A Government amendment to the Finance Bill which was carried on 12th May increases the exemption limit for new registrations from £5,000 to £7,500 from 1st October 1977. Small businesses below the exemption limit may register voluntarily if they think that this will be beneficial to them.

Value Added Tax (Disabled Persons' Appliances)

Mr. MacKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has given further consideration to exempting maintenance of disabled persons' appliances from higher rate VAT.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. MacKay: Is the Minister aware that many disabled people are concerned about the situation? Is he further aware that they think that it is ludicrous that their appliances are zero rated but that the maintenance of them and spare parts for them are taxed at the luxury rate? Does he know that in medical circles there is anxiety that because of the luxury rate there could be tragedies involving disabled people in the near future? Will he take action to remove this obvious bureaucratic error?

Mr. Davies: I cannot accept the last part of the hon. Member's question. I accept that there is concern that the maintenance of these aids is rated at 12½

per cent. whereas their supply is zero rated. When the aids are supplied to people who are not chronically sick and disabled they are taxed at the higher rate. It is thought right, as a matter of principle, to have the same basic rate of VAT for the supply of goods and for their maintenance.

Sir G. Howe: Does not that situation underline how foolish the Government were to introduce more than one positive rate of VAT? Is it not an overwhelming argument for returning to one rate?

Mr. Davies: The problem would not be solved by reducing the rate from 12½ per cent. to 10 per cent. The problem would still be the same if the rate were the same for maintenance and for supply.

Travel-to-Work Expenses

Sir A. Meyer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received, since his Budget Statement, on the need to make essential travel-to-work expenses tax deductable.

Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend has received representations on this subject from time to time and has continued to do so since the Budget.

Sir A. Meyer: What advice should I give to constituents who write to me and say that once they have travelled a certain distance to a low-paid job and paid tax on their earnings, it is just not worth their while to go out to work?

Mr. Davies: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The cost of travel to work is a major problem, but I do not think that it can be dealt with through the tax system.

Mr. Bowden: Is the Minister aware that some of my constituents travelling up from Brighton each day have to earn £750 a year to get to and from work? Does he understand that this is causing very real hardship, particularly for some of my constituents who are earning less than £3,500 a year?

Mr. Davies: I have accepted that this is a problem—not only for people in the South-East but also, of course, for people in some areas that are poorer than the South-East. It is a problem, but it cannot be dealt with through the tax system.

British Petroleum Limited

Mr. Biffen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the disposal of part of the Government's holding in British Petroleum Ltd.

Mr. Joel Barnett: The Bank of England is proceeding with the arrangements for the sale of sufficient stock to reduce the public sector holding to 51 per cent.

Mr. Biffen: Is it the Government's intention that part of this holding will be disposed of to United States investors using the mechanism of the North American securities market?

Mr. Barnett: The method of disposal is still under discussion. At present I cannot say anything about precisely how it would be done.

Mr. Hooley: Has BP's involvement in Sea-bed Mining been made with the approval of the Treasury? What are the calculations of the consequences of this in future for its profitability?

Mr. Barnett: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "No, Sir". The second part does not apply.

Mr. Tebbit: Why is it that although it was held in the past the disposal of these shares would cause a reduction in the PSBR, the purchase of shares in, for example, the British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker Siddeley Aviation will not cause an increase in the PSBR?

Mr. Barnett: Actually, it is rather simple. When one acquires assets by giving gilts in return for them, that does not add to the PSBR. It causes additional problems in financing money supply, but does not—[Interruption.] That is an entirely different matter. Certainly, the sale of a proportion of BP shares would mean a reduction in the PSBR.

Mr. Rost: As the Government at present hold only 51 per cent. of BP legally, the rest of the shares being under dispute, how can the Government reduce that holding and still retain 51 per cent.?

Mr. Barnett: Because, on the best advice that we have received, there is no merit in the Burmah claim.

Gross National Product

Radice: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the growth in gross national product.

Mr. Joel Barnett: No, Sir.

Mr. Radice: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the improving balance of payments figures and the PSBR forecast, to which reference has been made today, mean that we should be able to expand the economy rather faster later in the year?

Mr. Barnett: A few moments ago my right hon. Friend said something like that, but it is a little early to decide. We need rather more facts about the way in which the economy is moving and about what kind of pay deal we shall have after 31st July before coming to any conclusion on that matter.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware of the part that United Kingdom, and especially Scottish, agriculture could play in adding to the GNP and lowering the English balance of payments deficit? If so, will he withdraw Treasury objections to immediate and essential cash injections into the livestock sector of that industry?

Mr. Barnett: As the hon. Gentleman will have noted, in the last three months there was not a balance of payments deficit. But everything that we are doing, in the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish economies, will be beneficial in due course, to both the balance of payments and the economy generally.

Mr. Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend explain why it is that an increase in the growth of GNP now seems to have a much lower priority in the Government's aims than it had a few years ago?

Mr. Barnett: It does not have a lower priority. However, there is no point in going for a massive increase in GNP which is not sustainable. That is the problem. I am as much in favour of rapid growth in the GNP as ever I was, but there is no point in having a short burst of increase and then having the economy brought to a grinding halt, as has happened in the past.

Vehicle Excise Duty

Mr. Adley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why internal combustion engines in all their various forms are required to be licensed in addition to paying duty on the fuel purchased to propel them.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Vehicle excise duty, which has its counterpart in many other countries, is a demand-light tax which makes a necessary contribution to the revenue. To abolish vehicle excise duty and replace the revenue by an increase in petrol duty would add 18½ per gallon to the price of petrol.

Mr. Adley: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is the criterion of a necessary contribution to the revenue the main reason? If so, is the Minister interested in similar suggestions that I might be able to put to him?

Mr. Davies: Contribution to the revenue is not unimportant, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that the existence of this tax has been debated, and that for industrial reasons it is felt that it is better to raise the revenue in this way than to put 18½ extra on the price of a gallon of petrol.

Mr. Jessel: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the annual yield to the Exchequer from road tax.

Mr. Denzil Davies: The estimated yield for 1977–78 is £1,032 million.

Mr. Jessel: How much is lost through evasion and what are the Government doing about it?

Mr. Davies: I am sorry, but I do not have figures showing how much is lost through evasion, because, by the very nature of the thing, it is difficult to know. I have no doubt that a certain amount is lost through evasion and I can see that this is one possible weakness in the operation of the duty. Of course, there are other reasons why we have to maintain the duty.

Wages

Mr. Ridley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in the average weekly wage between March 1974 and the present time expressed in terms of current £ sterling.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Between March 1974 and April 1977 the index of basic rates of wages rose by 79·4 per cent. After adjusting for inflation, this represented a real increase of 2·1 per cent.

Mr. Ridley: Is the Minister of State aware that the actual standard of living has fallen by 4 per cent. since the present Government came into office? Is he further aware that if we have another 25 years of Labour Government—God forbid!—we shall have no standard of living left at all?

Mr. Davies: I am perfectly aware that the standard of living has fallen over the last three years. I am also aware that one major reason for that was the policies of of the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a member. The best guarantee that this trend will not continue is to keep the Opposition in opposition for the next 25 years.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: How does that figure compare with the increase in pensions since March 1974, taking into account yesterday's increase?

Mr. Davies: Despite the fall in the standard of living of most people, we have been able to maintain the purchasing power of pensions. However, the Conservative Party wants to reduce public expenditure, and especially current spending, and such a reduction would have to fall on pensions and social security benefits.

Growth Prospects

Mr. Gould: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the prospects for export-led growth in 1977.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Forecasts of the growth of exports were given in Tables 4 and 5 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report. The most recent trade returns show an encouraging growth in volume of our exports.

Mr. Gould: Is it not the case that the Treasury forecasts a continuing fall in our share of world trade in manufactures and a continuing rise in import penetration? Might this not have something to do with the fact that we are continuing to spend money from reserves to prop up the pound when our industrial costs are rising faster than those of anyone else?

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is quite right. There has been a fall over the years in our share of manufactures. But that has very little to do with the reserves or with the level of the pound; it is caused mainly by the lack of productivity by British industry and our failure to compete with our major competitors.

Mr. Dykes: In the context of export values and the current level of the £ sterling, if the Bank of England ceased its intervention straight away what does the Minister think the value of the pound would be tomorrow?

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman does not expect me to answer a hypothetical question of that kind. The main thing, and what is most important, is that the currency rate should be stable. It is stable at the moment and that is of great benefit to industrialists and the majority of people in this country.

Lifeboatmen

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax is payable on earnings from part-time service in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Lifeboatmen are liable to tax on these earnings at the appropriate rate.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Minister satisfied that the tax system does not operate so as to make any lifeboatman worse off because of part-time wages as is the case to my knowledge with some members of the Ulster Defence Regiment?

Mr. Davies: Lifeboatmen pay tax on their part-time earnings. I recognise that they have strong feelings about it, but they are not treated any differently from other people who pay tax on part-time earnings.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (SPEECH)

Mr. Michael Morris: asked the Prime Minister if the speech by the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 6th May 1977 in South Leeds on local government election results represents Government policy.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): Yes.

Mr. Morris: As the local election results reflected democracy at work, will the Prime Minister tell the House in what way democracy is furthered by adding Trotskyites to the Government party? Will he also tell us in what way the Lib-Lab pact to contain Socialism is still in existence?

The Prime Minister: No, not in reply to that Question.

Mr. Sims: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Home Secretary likened his reception by the police to demonstrations by the IRA and the National Front? Does the Prime Minister agree that the right hon. Gentleman's comparison is quite disgraceful, and will he confirm that it does not represent Government policy?

The Prime Minister: The demonstrations outside the hall, if they were correctly reported, were not a credit to the police service. I know enough about the police service to know that the majority of policemen would agree with my view, that they do not believe that is the best way to express their genuinely felt grievances.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever the local government election results, local government reform introduced by the Conservative Government has proved to be a complete and utter disaster and that those county boroughs that were merged into counties are now getting far worse services and paying a lot more for them?

The Prime Minister: As I go around the country I find that local government reform is not generally regarded as a jewel in the crown of the last Conservative Administration. However, we have to reflect carefully before we decide to take any particular action to alter this at present or, indeed, in the immediate future, because local government must be given an opportunity to adjust itself. I am bound to say that the more I hear about it the less I feel that Parliament was well advised to accept the proposal that the Conservative Government then put forward.

Mrs. Thatcher: I refer to the speech of the Home Secretary, which is the subject


of the Question. Does the Prime Minister recall that towards the end of that speech the Home Secretary talked about the Government's economic programme and about the benefits that we should all share? Is the Prime Minister aware that since the last election the take-home pay of the average worker has fallen by £8 a week? Does he expect there to be any improvement in the current financial year?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The right hon. Lady knows the reasons for this. We have been attempting to live within our means after the profligate extravagance of the Conservative Government. With regard to the future, our assessment is that from now on, if we can maintain a reasonable approach on these matters the standard of life should certainly begin to improve. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] Well, at present—if I may take just four factors—exports are going up, pensions are going up, unemployment is going down, and interest rates are going down. That is not a bad start.

Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister has said something similar to what he said last Tuesday, and it was partly for that reason that I asked him. If he expects that the standard of living will indeed improve, what kind of increase in pay is he expecting, bearing in mind the current rate of inflation and the current rate of tax? If the standard of living is to improve, does that not postulate a very large increase in pay?

The Prime Minister: Not necessarily. As I am sure the right hon. Lady will agree if she reflects on it, it would also be determined to some extent by an increase in productivity. It is to that that the Government are constantly addressing their mind, through the industrial strategy and in other ways.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH HEADS OF GOVERNMENT CONFERENCE

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister how many Heads of Government will be attending the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) on 24th May.

Mr. Marten: In the light of President Kaunda's remarks about President Amin, has any decision yet been taken about President Amin's entry to this country? On the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, will the Prime Minister take a lead in pressing ahead with the report of the Expert Committee set up in Jamaica at the last conference, and will he try to get the Commonwealth to take a rather greater collective lead in world affairs?

The Prime Minister: I recognise the strong feelings in the House and the natural desire to know the Government's opinion on the first matter. I only ask that in all our interests I am not pressed to give an answer on this matter at this moment. We have to take the decision ourselves. I can assure the House that we shall take the appropriate decision and that we shall have to be held responsible by the House for it in due course.
As for the Commonwealth giving a lead in world affairs, I shall certainly do my best to encourage that when the conference meets. I know that this view is held by a number of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, and I know that we do and can exercise a considerable influence. I always thought that it was valuable that about two years ago we began meeting at the United Nations as a Commonwealth group in order that we could express our views accordingly.
There are other ways. For example, the Commonwealth can provide a very useful means of entry into the EEC on a number of matters, and the Commonwealth values the fact that we are in the EEC in order to help in this direction.

Mr. Lipton: Have we not already come to a decision to spend £125 on Ugandan flags for the purposes of this conference? Does that commit us to anything?

The Prime Minister: The £125 might turn out to be very cheap at the price.

Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that the attendance of President Amin at this conference would be universally objectionable to public opinion in this country and almost certainly unanimously unacceptable to this House? Speaking for myself and my colleagues, however, I can say that we


recognise that this is a delicate matter and the precise method of giving effect to it is best left in the Prime Minister's hands.

The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. I believe that that is the view of all those who do not wish to see the Commonwealth unnecessarily damaged by the present position. I hope that is what we all wish to see.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE (POLICY UNIT)

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint someone with experience of industrial reorganisation and mergers to his policy unit at No. 10.

The Prime Minister: No.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a welcome on the Labour side of the House for his commitment and that of my other right hon. Friends to involve the NEB, on a permanent and long-term basis, in the restructuring of the turbo-generator industry? Will he confirm that the hold-up up in the announcement of the decision to order Drax B has arisen because Sir Arnold Weinstock still refuses to cooperate in creating a national turbo-generator company and is insisting on GEC control of whatever emerges rather than agreeing to a company which preserves the interests of all those who work in it?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly say that we intend that the Drax B power station should be ordered. But I very much regret that a battle is being fought out on the Order Paper and by publicity firms on the question how that order should be disposed of. We are here dealing with the livelihoods of thousands of men and with the future of the industry as a whole. It will be for the Government to take the decision. I deprecate references to anybody in this matter when these difficult negotiations are going on. The Government do not have the power to force any restructuring of this industry. The restructuring can be done only by consent. If that consent is not forthcoming, there will be no restructuring. The Government will

have to take their own decision and discuss with the CEGB how this order is to be placed. I hope that everybody concerned, including my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), will understand the implications of what I am saying.

Mr. Tom King: Will the Prime Minister confirm the statement by his own colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, that if the order is placed it will be put out to competitive tender?

The Prime Minister: Not at the moment. I do not wish to give cards to any particular group in this matter. We are here dealing with a national interest. There are delicate commercial negotiations going on. I repeat what I said. I do not believe that it is in the best interests of the future of this industry that we should try to—[Interruption.] I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press this issue on the Floor of the House at present.

Mr. Joseph Dean: Will the Prime Minister reconsider part of his answer concerning Drax B? I speak as one who has only lately become involved in the battle on the Order Paper. May I ask my right hon. Friend, in fairness to both sides and to workers in the power industry and both companies—workers whose jobs are threatened—to see that if Drax B is ordered the order should be seen to be fair to both sides and should go out to open tender, and not be handed on a plate to one company and its workers?

The Prime Minister: I note what my hon. Friend says. I am trying to keep the position as it is. We are at the last stage of negotiations. Whether those negotiations will break down or go through I do not yet know, but I would prefer at this stage just to note what my hon. Friend says and not to give any further information.

Mr. Ridley: There is a growing body of opinion that believes that further industrial concentration into larger and larger units, particularly the nationalised public sector units, is the root cause of many of our industrial problems. Will the Prime Minister seek to promote instead a policy of encouraging small firms and preventing industrial concentration in larger industries, which is exactly


the reverse of what he has been doing hitherto?

The Prime Minister: That is a more generalised question. If I am asked whether I believe that a great many bigger firms can grow out of small firms, the answer is "Yes". We should do our best to encourage that. As for the matter to which this question is related, there is general agreement among the trade unions and the industry itself that rationalisation demands one technology for future power stations, especially if we are to be able to compete internationally. We need a level of production that cannot be sustained if the industry is divided. There is no general answer. We must take each case on its merits.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Prime Minister what study he is making of the effects of United Kingdom membership of the EEC.

The Prime Minister: The effects of EEC policies in different fields are kept under continuing review.

Mr. Roberts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Common Market is now regarded as a disaster by the British people in general and by the vast majority of the Labour movement in particular? Does he not feel that it is now time for another referendum, with the Labour Government leading the campaign to come out?

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend is very concerned to uphold conference decisions on all these matters. I must remind him that at the special Labour Party conference that was called to consider the referendum, the decision was taken that the Government would accept the result of the referendum as binding. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want me to go back on that.

Mr. McCrindle: Is the Prime Minister proud of the fact that as we reach the end of the period of British presidency of the Commission, the Tribune Group should be trying to lead us out of the EEC while others of his colleagues are preventing us from carrying out our obligations on direct elections?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that any of us should try to silence or stifle the legitimate criticisms of weakness in the EEC structure, some of which are exemplified by some of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends. But that does not alter the basic fact that our presidency has certainly been at least as successful as those of our predecessors—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, yes?"] Oh, yes! I have been there and seen. For the future, it is our job to play our full part in developing a new and wider Europe. That is what we said we would do when we had our special conference.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only realistic view at the moment is to stay in the EEC and make it work much better? Can he confirm or deny authoritative reports that our inflation problem is not even primarily due to the EEC, and will he ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture is honest with the House and gives the figures that will bear that out?

The Prime Minister: Answers have been given in this House that show the influence of the common agricultural policy on price rises in this country. The CAP has had an impact on certain food prices but certainly not on the general level of inflation, which is due to many other causes. The Minister of Agriculture has played a most notable part in recent negotiations, in that for the first time the increase in rewards given to the agricultural community was less than the increase in their costs. This is the kind of restructuring that we must continue to work for.

Mr. Pardoe: Does the Prime Minister agree that the view that we take on the CAP is dictated largely by the view that we take on the balance between the world supply of and demand for food in future? In future, people will be very grateful for having paid a high price to be part of a self-sufficient food community if there is a drastic world food shortage in the 1980s and 1990s. What studies have the Government made of the world supply and demand for food in the 1980s and 1990s?

The Prime Minister: Studies that have been done have led to the conclusion that the hon. Member has just given—that there will be a growing world demand


for food and a possible world shortage as standards improve. That is why, in the case of our own agriculture—although we have not succeeded as much as we would like—we have proceeded with expansion. [Interruption.] There will be expansion of agricultural production this year if we do not have another drought. On world food production—there are some surpluses in North America, and that country would like a greater access to the European market. We should try, temporarily, to adjust ourselves to that, but, at the same time, there is every reason why Europe should become as self-supporting as possible.

Mr. Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister said that he did not want to be pressed about President Amin, Drax B, or direct elections. Is it possible to elicit from him, through you, any area of Government activity in which he would like to be pressed?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member knows better than that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for the first week after the recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Yes, Sir. The business for the first week after the Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 13TH JUNE—Supply [21st Allotted Day]: a debate on the Second Report from the Select Committee on Overseas Development in Session 1975–76, and the Second Report in Session 1976–77 on relations with developing countries, and the related Government observations.
The following EEC documents will be relevant—S/327/77, S/76 Nos. 438, 968, 1218 and 1553, R/76 Nos. 534, 1676 and 2542, together with the Report on the Community food aid programme for cereals and dairy products.
Motion on EEC document R/752/77 on European Social Fund.
TUESDAY 14TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Coal Industry Bill and of the Transport (Financial Provisions) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 15TH JUNE—Until about 7 o'clock, Second Reading of the New Towns Bill.
Afterwards, progress on the remaining stages of the Price Commission Bill.
THURSDAY 16TH JUNE—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]: subject for debate to be announced.
Motion on EEC document R/1435/68 on taxation systems for commercial vehicles.
FRIDAY 17TH JUNE—Private Members' motions.

Mrs. Thatcher: May I press the Leader of the House about the Bill for direct elections? When does he expect that it will be published, particularly bearing in mind that there is a European Summit shortly after we return? Will he give an undertaking that the Bill will be published before then? Will he say what is holding up his best endeavours?

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady has put that question on one or two other occasions. A communication on that subject will be made during the first week after we return from the recess.

Mr. Mellish: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Abortion (Amendment) Bill is one which creates a great deal of argument in this House and that no one would deny its importance? Will the Government do anything to facilitate its coming before the House so that the House, on a free vote, can make its own decision?

Mr. Foot: What the Government have done in relation to this Bill is exactly the same as they have done in relation to other Private Members' Bills. I do not think that my right hon. Friend is asking for that to be altered. The Bill will go into a Standing Committee and we shall see how it continues from there. The Government are adopting the same position as other Governments have adopted in the past.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Can the Leader of the House—knowing how fair-minded he is about the matters that we debate—arrange a debate so that we can discuss the extraordinary statements and speeches that he has made recently?

Mr. Foot: I thought that everything that I had said had met with universal


approval. Therefore, there is no need for a debate.

Mr. Palmer: When are we likely to have the general debate on energy policy that the Lord President has promised?

Mr. Foot: I fully acknowledge that I have indicated that we should have a debate on this matter. I cannot say when it will be, but it will not take place during the first week after the recess. I shall bear in mind the representations that have been made to me on this subject.

Mr. Budgen: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we may have a debate on immigration? I should remind him that the last time we had a full debate on this subject was in July 1976. We had a short debate on Tuesday, but that lasted for only one-and-a-quarter hours. May I remind him that for many people in this country this is one of the most important issues of the day? If the House does not debate the matter, it is doing no more than suppressing genuine public fears.

Mr. Foot: There is no question of suppression, either by myself or by the House. I fully acknowledge the importance of and widespread interest in the question. However, this is an appropriate subject for debate in the House. It is an appropriate subject for a Supply Day.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I remind hon. Members that there are two major statements to follow. If hon. Members are fortunate enough to catch my eye now, they may not be so lucky later.

Mr. Urwin: While appreciating the comments of the Prime Minister a few minutes ago, may I ask the Leader of the House to take note of Early-Day Motion No. 353:
[That this House, pursuant to the Prime Minister's assurances on 12th May that the Drax B power station will be ordered 'with the minimum of delay' and 'whatever the result of consultations on restructuring the power plant industry, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to place the order without further delay to save the tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland and on Tyneside that depend on it.]
Is he aware of the importance of taking a fairly early decision on this matter, as it is in the best interests of employment, both in the Northern Region and in Scotland? Is it possible that we shall have an early debate after Whitsun on this vital matter?

Mr. Foot: We cannot have a debate in the week that we return. I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister said on this subject a few moments ago. There are, on the Order Paper, representations from different points of view.

Mr. Marten: Has the Leader of the House noticed Early-Day Motion No. 346:
[That this House, recognising the importance to most British citizens of the existing British passport, believes that there should be no final commitment by Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Euro-passport until there has been an affirmative decision of the House of Commons to approve it.]
Is he aware that we believe that there should be no final commitment to a European passport until Parliament has so decided? This motion has been supported by some senior Back Benchers on this side of the House and shortly there will be support from the other side of the House [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members should sign up. What we want is not decision by Royal Prerogative but for this House to debate the matter and reach a decision. That is what democracy is all about.

Mr. Foot: I fully accept what the hon. Member says. I refer him to my statement of 4th May. I thought that that statement commanded general enthusiasm from him and other hon. Members.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us have given up hope of the Public Lending Right Bill returning to this House, although it has been waiting at the door for some weeks? Will he give some assurance about the Government's intentions in the next Session of Parliament?

Mr. Foot: This was a Bill which the Government backed and wanted to see on the statute book. That is still the Government's view. I do not think that it would be possible, if the Government brought the matter forward now, for it


to be passed this Session, but I believe that it is a Bill to be properly considered in the next Session.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I return to the subject mentioned by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish)—namely, the Abortion (Amendment) Bill? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a lobby of Parliament took place last week when 15,000 people from all parts of the country, and representing all sections of the community, came to this House to lobby their Members on this subject? Following the way in which the Labour Government in 1967 gave a fair wind to the Abortion Bill—to which so many people now object—will he give an assurance to the House that he will find time for this Bill to pass through its stages in this House and for a decision to be made on a free vote?

Mr. Foot: The subject covered by this measure has been decided, settled and voted upon by a free vote whenever it has come before the House. That remains the situation. I fully acknowledge that there is widespread concern in the House and in the country on this subject. But there is not only one point of view to be considered; there are different points of view to be heard. On that basis we have to consider the attitude towards Private Members' Bills going through the House. The Government take the view that they should abide by the normal rules applying to those Bills.

Mr. Bidwell: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider whether he should put before the House a Bill on direct elections to the European Assembly since, apparently, there does not appear to be any burning desire for such legislation in the country, least of all in the Labour Party? Since it will merely engender commotion and buttress the decision of last year's conference, which went against such legislation, why is there now so much hurry for the measure?

Mr. Foot: This matter was referred to in the Queen's Speech at the beginning of the Session. I have already told the Leader of the Opposition that the Government would make a communication to the House on this subject in the week when the House returns.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: Will the right hon. Genteman consider allowing the House to debate at an early date the situation affecting the police and their pay? I believe that the Leader of the House has a vast knowledge of the law, through his distinguished brother, who is one of Her Majesty's counsel.

Mr. Foot: I do not know whether I would rely on my brother on all those matters—that is another question altogether. The House has debated this matter, the Government's attitude has been made plain by the Home Secretary on a number of occasions, and he has given his reasons for that attitude. The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) and others would serve the country best by making known to others the reasons for those decisions.

Sir A. Royle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I request your guidance on a matter of procedure? The Leader of the House on two occasions—first, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and, secondly, in reply to a Labour Member—said that he intended to make a communication to the House on direct elections to the European Parliament when the House returns after the recess. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that he would make a statement to the House or that a Bill would be tabled? Will you explain what the Leader of the House intended to tell us?

Mr. Speaker: I am in the same state of blissful ignorance.

Mr. Foot: Further to the point of order that was not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The word "communication" was intended to cover all eventualities, and I am sure that it does so. The word was well chosen, and I was gratified to see how well received it was by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs. Thatcher: Could we have a little more detail on this new species? The Lord President must know whether he means a statement or the tabling of a Bill. If it means anything, it can mean nothing. Surely it must mean something.

Mr. Foot: It is not that it means nothing and it is not that it means anything. It means exactly what I have said—and I am sure that the right hon. Lady


was wiser in her first thoughts than in her second thoughts.

Mr. John Garrett: Will my right hon. Friend allow time for the House to debate the important report published this week on the footwear industry—a report produced by a group including hon. Members from both sides of the House? The footwear industry is as large as the shipbuilding industry, but it is the industry in the country which is declining fastest, which is a matter of great concern to a great many of us.

Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a debate on the subject, but I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to see what representations can be made on the subject. I shall see whether the matter can be discussed.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I shall call one hon. Member from either side of the House and then move on to the statement. Mr. Spriggs.

Mr. Spriggs: Can my right hon. Friend give a date for the commencement of the Committee stage of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill?

Mr. Foot: I cannot give a date because, under the normal procedures of the House, there is still another Bill in that Committee, but it is very likely that that Bill will proceed through Committee fairly speedily, and that the other Bill will follow according to the normal procedures of the House.

Mr. William Shelton: Am I not right in thinking that the Leader of the House gave Government backing to the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, a Private Members' Bill? Therefore, is it not possible to give the Abortion (Amendment) Bill a similar fair wind because it, too, is a Private Members' Bill?

Mr. Foot: The Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill is a Private Members' Bill which is going through Committee, and soon after we return from the recess it will return to the Committee. It has been moved from one Committee to another. In some respects that will ease the situation in respect of the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. However, in both

cases I believe that it is right for the House to abide by the normal procedures of the House.

BRITISH LEYLAND (INVESTMENT PLANS)

The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on British Leyland's investment plans.
On 2nd March I described three objectives towards which the National Enterprise Board considered urgent action had to be taken.
The first was that there should be a quick and complete return to normal working. The second was that agreed levels of production and productivity had to be sustained. The NEB considers that in these respects progress has been satisfactory. There was a return to work on 21st March and since the beginning of April output in Leyland cars has consistently met the level budgeted in British Leyland's plans, and in several weeks these levels have been exceeded.
The NEB's third point was that the period before the next tranche of funds was required had to be used for discussions between management, trade unions, and the work force, which would result in tangible measures offering the prospect of a radical improvement in industrial relations in the future. These discussions are still taking place, and an important meeting will be held in Birmingham tomorrow.
During March and April British Leyland undertook a searching analysis of the courses open to them in future. The NEB reported to me on 5th May. The NEB concluded that if the conditions set out in the Ryder Report could be met, it would still be in British Leyland's and the country's interests for the company to remain a producer of volume and specialist cars.
The most vital of these conditions is a substantial improvement in industrial relations and productivity. The NEB considers that, even allowing for the achievements of recent weeks, progress so far has not been encouraging. There have been real advances in productivity, but these have been short-lived. The participation machinery holds out important


prospects for progress, but it has not been accepted everywhere. I take the opportunity of urging all in British Leyland to make use of this machinery.
In the light of this, the NEB recommended that a final decision on the choice of strategy should be deferred to enable it to review British Leyland's investment plans in greater detail and it will be reporting to me later in the year.
The work undertaken in the review has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the NEB that the Mini replacement programme has a vital part to play in re-establishing British Leyland's position in volume cars. If the company is to meet its launch date an immediate decision is required on this programme on which the company ordered a halt during the toolmakers' dispute. I have therefore authorised the NEB to allow work on this programme to be resumed as soon as it is satisfied that sufficient tangible progress is being made towards measures that will put industrial relations on a new basis.
The Ryder Report envisaged that British Leyland would require a further tranche of £200 million from public funds in mid-1977. The NEB now advises me that it expects British Leyland's requirement in the summer to be considerably less than this, but it expects that further funds will be needed within the current financial year. If progress is sufficient to justify an approach to the House for further advances, I shall accompany the request with a report by the NEB on performance to date. The House would be right to expect this as a basis on which it can form its judgment.
It was this Government who saved Leyland in 1975 and safeguarded hundreds of thousands of jobs. We as a Government remain ready to play our part in backing British Leyland. But the massive contribution required from public funds can be justified only by linking funding to performance. We have some good recent evidence, and we shall be looking for more before returning to the House.

Sir K. Joseph: We welcome such progress as there has been, although it is admittedly only partial and, as the Secretary of State said, measured over only a short period. We also welcome the Secretary of State's apparent caution before asking the House to commit large

sums of money that can come only from savings or taxes on the people and at the expense of other potential activities.
We note that the decision on the Mini has been left to the NEB, if that body is satisfied about industrial relations. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he must also be satisfied that over half of any investment will be financed internally, as required in the Ryder plan? Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that, as recommended by the Central Policy Review Staff, the agreement of unions and shop stewards to internationally competitive manning schedules should be obtained before any investment is authorised?

Mr. Varley: On further funding, the Government have made plain—ever since April 1975 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), who was then Prime Minister, made the original statement to the House—that further public funds would be conditional on an improvement in the performance and industrial relations of British Leyland. That remains the position. We certainly expect that more than half the money required for investment in Leyland should be provided internally and we want the NEB to hold to that objective.
Substantial progress has been made in industrial relations during the last few weeks and performance has been pretty good. Since the difficulties in March, all the trade unions, and certainly all the senior trade union leaders, have been doing all in their power to bring about an improvement in performance and industrial relations. I have discussed the matter with them during the last few days, and they have told me that they will continue to use their best endeavours to bring about an improvement in performance and to help the company to move to competitive levels that will ensure the future of British Leyland.

Mr. Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all of us on this side of the House will welcome the positive and constructive tone of his statement but that there has been slight doubt about what, precisely, has been authorised? May I press him on this point? May we take it that the Mini programme has been authorised in its entirety by the Government but that it is up to the NEB to


authorise the release of funds to Leyland and that the NEB has the money to do that? Will this go ahead at full speed—because it is clear that speed is of the essence if the car is not to be too late for the success that it must have if it is to earn a return on the huge sums that will be committed?

Mr. Varley: We are satisfied and confident that the Mini programme should go ahead. The decision is for the NEB, and it is for the NEB to monitor the performance of British Leyland. The NEB will want to look at Leyland's performance during the next few days, and important discussions are taking place. I believe that the programme will go ahead.
My hon. Friend asked about finance. Resources will be made available for the Mini programme. I am advised that the new Mini will be profitable and that it will make an important contribution to not only jobs but exports. I want to see the programme go ahead. It is important that site work should be resumed as quickly as possible, but it is for the NEB to give the final decision.

Mr. Hal Miller: Will the Secretary of State come clean? Is work now to be resumed on the West works at Long-bridge in preparation for the laying-down of the new advanced production facilities for the new Mini? The right hon. Gentleman has said that he hopes that it will and that the decision is now for the NEB. Can the right hon. Gentleman not understand there is a need to give confidence to people working in Leyland that there is a future, to the dealers that they will have a product to sell so that they will stay with the company, and to the public that the money already spent is not just being thrown away?

Mr. Varley: I do not want to throw away money and nor does any other hon. Member. I want to back the Mini programme.

Mr. Hal Miller: The right hon. Gentleman has not said that.

Mr. Varley: The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) always jumps to conclusions and I should have thought that today of all days—after his remarks last week when the hon.

Gentleman jumped to conclusions—he would be more temperate in his anger. Perhaps I can return to that later.
The backing that we have given to British Leyland during the past two years should not be in question. I laid before the House the decision to go ahead and acquire British Leyland with £246 million of public money—£46 million to acquire the shares and another £200 million in new equity—as well as a further £100 million. I want the Mini programme to go ahead. I have taken the decision, and the NEB can authorise it when it is satisfied about progress.

Mr. Urwin: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and I am sure that he appreciates that most of us believe in the vital importance of maintaining the car industry, as represented by British Leyland, as a vital part of the British economy. In this developing situation of competing demands on the financial resources that can be made available by the Government, will the Secretary of State particularly bear in mind the requirements of the development areas? Does my right hon. Friend realise that it is extremely important that he. should ensure that Government investment is well placed and that the need for it is well qualified and justified?
My right hon. Friend referred to the important meeting that will take place tomorrow. What will be the terms of reference of that meeting and who will be represented there?

Mr. Varley: There is no doubt that I want to see Leyland become a successful company and I have said that on umpteen occasions in the House. Progress has been made, and I have no doubt that, given good will on everybody's part, Leyland will succeed. Leyland's car production last year rose by nearly 14 per cent. and exports rose by 25 per cent. in volume terms. That point should not be lost to the House. I am with my hon. Friend on that matter.
I know of my hon. Friend's general interest in the development areas. Many companies in those areas supply components to British Leyland and rely on the investment and success of the company.
I cannot give my hon. Friend the names of the people who will be at tomorrow's


meeting in Birmingham, but he will know that, following the difficulties in March, two working parties were set up to consider the dispute. The members of those working parties will be at the meeting, along with senior members of British Leyland's management.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement is reassuring because it leaves the responsibility for British Leyland with the NEB rather than throwing on to the Floor of the House intricate questions of new car model policy? Does he accept that the long pause in British Leyland investment gives him an excellent and badly-needed opportunity to prepare a coherent outline plan for Government investment in the whole motor car industry and in relation to other manufacturing industries that are in need? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that such a plan is necessary and, if so, what progress has been made in that direction?

Mr. Varley: I want to give the hon. Gentleman and the House as much information as I can about the progress of British Leyland. There have been calls, though none so far today, for the commercially-confidential plans of the company to be laid before the House. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is impracticable. It would be to the disadvantage of British Leyland and would only hamper its prospects. However, I shall give the House as much information as I can.
There has been a good deal of speculation in the Press about the management of British Leyland, and I cannot condemn too strongly recent attempts to undermine the confidence of the management. Speculation about changes in the structure has damaged morale. The organisation of the company is primarily a matter for the NEB, and I have received no recommendation from it in favour of changes.

Mr. Silverman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome his statement about the Mini? However, are he and the NEB fully aware of the urgency of the Mini project and the investment as a means of helping the export of cars and, more important, import substitution? I have a large Leyland plant in my constituency, and the declaration that the Mini is to proceed is an act of faith in

the company that will improve the morale of workers and help to improve industrial relations.

Mr. Varley: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is certainly an act of faith, and I hope that the faith is not misplaced. I do not believe that it is. I want to see British Leyland remain a volume car producer for the reasons given by a number of hon. Members. It is sometimes thought that the NEB consists of staff only and that it has no industrial expertise. Hon. Members sometimes forget that the Board is composed of senior industrialists and senior trade unionists. I am acting on their advice, and the decisions that I have taken, together with today's announcement, come from the Board.

Mr. MacKay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of concern in Birmingham and that we are pleased that it looks as though the Mini project is going ahead? Is he aware that those of us directly involved in the motor car industry and who know something about it believe that the Mini will be a great success provided we get the project started quickly? Will he ensure that the NEB concentrates its mind in the next few weeks on finding ways of financing extra new models rather than on the irrelevant topic of slush money which is completely out of context and should be ignored by the Board?

Mr. Varley: I do not want to comment today on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question because I shall be reporting the results of inquiries that I have asked to be carried out into allegations that have been made.
I want the Mini to be successful. The existing Mini has been very successful over the years and has made a massive and wonderful contribution to the economy of this country. We now need a replacement. That is what it is all about.

Mr. Loyden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the part of his statement dealing with the deferment of the options open to Leyland and the review will be met with dismay and disappointment by workers in my constituency who relate the morale in the industry and the Merseyside plant to the indecision over the options open to Leyland and consider that this is related to the poor production


effort that my right hon. Friend mentioned? Will he ensure that a statement is made as quickly as possible to remove the uncertainty facing the workers in my constituency?

Mr. Varley: I do not believe that the uncertainty mentioned by my hon. Friend exists. I hope that he will read and consider my statement in more detail. We have given the go-ahead, subject to the NEB making the final decision, to the Mini replacement programme, and that is a substantial investment in itself. It involves more than £200 million, which is not something to be sneered at. I envisage that before the Summer Recess I shall have to come to the House and make a further report about future public money that will be required.

Mr. Eyre: On the important questions of production and confidence, is the Minister aware that the change from piece-work to measured day work made relations in the company worse? Can he assure us that serious consideration is being given to a system of incentives based on a shop floor production system, because that could have an encouraging effect on production and the quality of production, both of which are so important to the future of the company?

Mr. Varley: I understand that the two working parties that are looking into the industrial relations of British Leyland are considering the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and no doubt they will report their conclusions in due course.

Mr. Rooker: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, although I think that when I have read the small print it will turn out to be not as good as my right hon. Friend makes out. Is he aware that in industrial relations it takes two sides to work together and that the working party did not start its work until six weeks after the toolmakers went back? Is he aware that there is still a great deal of doubt about the Mini programme because the NEB is answerable not to Parliament but to my right hon. Friend and that we cannot ask the NEB about the Mini?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement was not as clear as he may have wished and that I do not believe

that British Leyland workers will know tonight whether the Mini is going ahead? Whether we read the small print or not, can my right hon. Friend say that the Mini will go ahead and that there will be no more prevarication by the Board or the Government? Will he also consider ceasing the management of British Leyland by holding a shot-gun to the heads of the workers, because that is implied when he speaks about a further report and review being due later in the year?

Mr. Varley: My hon. Friend will want to look at my statement pretty closely. The Government want the Mini programme to go ahead, but at the end of the day the decision is for the NEB, which was established under an Act of Parliament. I hope that the decision will be taken very quickly, but it depends on the progress in industrial relations over the next few weeks. My hon. Friend should not disparage the NEB. He was an enthusiastic supporter of the concept and of the Industry Act 1975—

Mr. Rooker: I was an enthusiastic supporter of planning agreements as well.

Mr. Varley: My hon. Friend is an enthusiastic supporter of some things and selective on occasions, but he was an enthusiastic supporter of the NEB and the 1975 Act. There are senior industrialists and senior trade union leaders on the Board and I am relying on their advice.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the four hon. Members who still wish to ask questions.

Mr. Crouch: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is continuing concern on the question of accountability? The Beard is a relatively new body and I am not seeking to knock it, but we have the Minister coming to the House from time to time seeking new tranches of money to fund new activities of selected companies operating under the NEB. We are concerned about accountability—

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to ask a question?

Mr. Crouch: Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern felt by hon. Members about the accountability of the NEB to this House? Will the Secretary of State


say whether he is concerned and whether he will not just leave it to the NEB to decide which facilities will be given to Select Committees of the House, such as the Public Accounts Committee and the Expenditure Committee, to see the progress of this funding?

Mr. Varley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the Public Accounts Committee has already taken steps.

Mr. Crouch: I am a member of it.

Mr. Varley: The hon. Genteman says that he is a member of that Committee. He will be aware that the NEB has been before the Public Accounts Committee to discuss its plans and progress. It is open to the other Select Committees to ask the NEB to appear before them. I understand that the Public Accounts Committee is very much in the lead, but I know that on occasions the NEB has given evidence before the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee.

Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that delay in taking the policy strategic decision is a cause of anxiety not only to car workers but also to the people making buses in my constituency? Will he make a clear statement that the increase of the Mini programme and the present strategic arrangements for cars will not cause any cutback in the production of buses, which have been good export business?

Mr. Varley: The bus and traffic division of British Leyland is no way affected by the current review.

Mr. Emery: Does the Minister accept, as the Opposition accept, that British Leyland is one of our greatest British assets and that we want to see it as successful as he does?
One of the phrases used by the Secretary of State must cause some concern. In his preface he said that the choice of strategy would be delayed. I wonder whether he can begin to put a time scale to that? He will realise that such delay is bound to cause concern.
Secondly, will he take some positive steps with the NEB to ensure that investment and work is put into the successful areas of British Leyland—such as the Jaguar and Range Rover lines, where

there are vast order books unfilled—to maximise the profitability and the production of this great company?

Mr. Varley: When I referred to the choice of strategy, it is generally known to hon. Members that British Leyland and the NEB consider varying strategies, from staying in volume car production to reducing the line of products and vehicles to specialist cars. They are considering that further. The Government want to see British Leyland stay in volume cars. But there is further work to be done on that. I envisage that before the Summer Recess I shall come before the House with a further report.

Mr. Atkinson: Will the Minister consider his own statement again, in the sense that he would never dare apply investment sanctions of this sort against other industries' industrial relationships, as he is doing in the car industry with British Leyland? He would never do that with the coal industry—certainly as it applies to the National Union of Mine-workers, of which he is a member. Does the Minister not recognise that in using sanctions of this kind he is enunciating the worst practice in terms of industrial relationships, that therefore he must reconsider whether the long-term planning of the industry should be conditioned in this way and whether he should not get down to the job of restoring confidence and morale? Is not the best way to do that to guarantee a long-term future?

Mr. Varley: That is precisely what I want to do. I want to play my part in trying to guarantee a long-term future. But I cannot do it alone. I did not create the uncertainty earlier in the year. My hon. Friend has no right to suggest, after the support that I have given to British Leyland since April 1975, that the decisions I have advised my colleagues to take indicate that I am creating uncertainty. I am not creating the uncertainty. I want the programme to go ahead. I want the jobs with British Leyland to be secured. I cannot do it alone. It depends to some extent on the reaction in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) will have great influence in these matters in the car production areas. Above all, it depends upon the managers and workers in British Leyland.

PIG SUBSIDY (EUROPEAN COURT RULING)

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Silkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the United Kingdom pigmeat industry.
On 21st May the European Court of Justice issued a decision on an application from the Commission to the effect that we should suspend the temporary pigmeat subsidy forthwith pending the outcome of the substantive hearing which will decide the legality or otherwise of this subsidy within the Treaty of Rome.
Following the Court's decision the Government are taking action to suspend the subsidy from Saturday 11th June.
Having regard to the serious implication of the Court's decision for the future of our pigmeat production and processing industries, I have pressed on Mr. Gundelach the need for immediate action to assist our pig sector. To this end I have made a formal application to the Commission for urgent action using its powers under Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession. Discussions with the Commission on this application have already started.

Mr. Peyton: A welcome is to be given to what the Minister said this afternoon: first, the fact that the subsidy will not be brought to a sudden end overnight and, secondly, the fact that the Minister made application to the Commission under Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession. Nevertheless, four questions arise.
Why did the Minister not make application before, as clearly a great deal of loss and suffering might have been avoided? Do we not now face a danger that both producers and processors have sustained heavy losses and are not in a condition to take much more? Is there not therefore the danger that producers will see this moment as a signal to join a precipitate flight, get out, and unload breeding stock, which will of course foreshadow high prices and shortages in the autumn? How does the Minister intend to reassure producers so as to fend off such a disastrous situation?

Mr. Silkin: On the first question, Article 135 is temporary. It is contained in the Treaty of Accession. It ceases with

the ending of the transition period on 1st January 1978. I have been trying to achieve a permanent solution since 8th September last. Indeed, when I introduced the pig subsidy I said on more than one occasion that it was a temporary subsidy. I have spent all these months trying to persuade the Commission to accept that a permanent solution is needed in the recalculation of pigmeat monetary compensatory amounts. The Commission has at last said that it is prepared to discuss the question.
When the Court decided that the pigmeat subsidy should cease it did not answer the question whether it was legal. That substantive action still remains. Of course, I had to do something else. That something else was the temporary solution of Article 135.
I agree that there is a great danger. However, at the joint Press conference that I held as President, with Mr. Gundelach as Commissioner, after the meeting of European Ministers of Agriculture in Lancaster House earlier this week, every question addressed to us concerned pigmeat. At that time the Commissioner was asked whether he would encourage or discourage British pig producers from slaughtering their herds. He said that he would tell them not to do so.

Mr. Torney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that he is taking something of a risk? In view of the way in which the common agricultural policy and the Common Market as a whole trundle along, is there not every possibility that the Commission's decision on giving more aid will still not have been made by 11th June? Does he not therefore feel that it would have been better to defy the order and so possibly have hastened the day when the CAP will disintegrate? The danger is that if this matter drags on our pig industry will go out of existence and workers in the bacon-curing industry will be thrown on the dole.

Mr. Silkin: The question of taking as great a step as my hon. Friend has indicated does not seem to arise on a narrow point such as that of assisting British pig producers. It is a much wider issue than that. On his first point, at the same conference Commissioner Gundelach said that he would treat the matter as one of urgency, and that he was well


aware that there should be no gap between the decision of the Commission—this is totally within the Commission's powers—and the ending of the pigmeat subsidy. So we know that urgent discussions are going on, we are taking part in them, and we expect Commissioner Gundelach's reply very soon.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I appreciate the efforts of the Minister to help the pig producers, but does he agree that if he could only persuade his counterparts in Europe to accept our guaranteed price system for pig producers and give a realistic price for the end product, the problems would be solved? Has the right hon. Gentleman given any further consideration to my proposals concerning the export of store pigs to the Continent? That would help the situation.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman's second point is very important, but it needs a deal of consideration. On his first point, it will not surprise him to know that there is a long list of what I should like my fellow members of the Agriculture Council to accept.

Mr. John Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is incredible that the official Opposition and those who support the Common Market should be criticising him at all? We realise that he is in a Catch-22 position, but those of us who oppose the Common Market are still distraught. Many of our constituents are going to the wall. Surely the Common Market, despite its ignorance, must recognise that this decision of the Court that we must suspend payment has put us in our present position. Does it realise the extent of this problem, does it intend to replace this payment, and does it realise that an alteration of the green pound is no solution in this instance? Does it intend to do anything urgent about a renegotiation of the MCAs, which is vital in this matter?

Mr. Silkin: My hon. Friend is speaking very much to the point. It seems to me that the crime that I have committed in European eyes is doing not too little but too much for the British pig producer. On the second question, the Court said that if the substantive decision that it hoped to make were to be in the United Kingdom's favour, the United Kingdom would still be able to provide the disputed

aid retroactively. Since the purpose of the aid is to stop the slaughter of pigs, and since very few British Ministers of Agriculture are endowed with the power of resurrecting slaughtered pigs, it seems to me that that comment casts more light on the European judges than it does on British pig producers.

Mr. Welsh: Does the Minister accept the need for an immediate cash injection into the industry to protect home supplies and restore confidence? If agreement is not reached by 11th June, will he consider other methods? An example is the Belgian straight cash payment per sow, or the French methods of protecting their suckler cow industry during a similar emergency. Does he realise that his short-term policy will be paid for dearly by both the housewife and the producer in eight or nine months, when high-price imports come from the Common Market to replace lost home production? May I add that, having given up a day of my party's conference to come here today, I am saddened to find that no Scots Tory or Labour Members are here to get this message over to the Minister?

Mr. Silkin: I am not sure what the message is, except that we need a permanent solution; not a temporary one. I have told the House several times that we shall do everything possible to see that there is a permanent solution. However, in the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis—that the Commission, despite the evidence, is unwilling to help us, and that we cannot get a permanent solution—there are various ideas at the back of one's mind, even if one is in the Catch-22 position referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis).

Mr. Hardy: May I share the concern that has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides? When will the next appropriate meeting take place in Europe? Will my right hon. Friend then maintain his position on the pigmeat MCAs and deplore the inadequate attention to that aspect of the matter that has been displayed by the Opposition Front Bench?

Mr. Silkin: I have enough difficulty sometimes explaining my own position to my colleagues in Europe without explaining the position of the Opposition Front


Bench. The next meeting of the Council is on 20th and 21st June; that is the moment when it will be discussed.

Mr. Peyton: Since the right hon. Gentleman has called in question, or mentioned, the position of the Opposition Front Bench, will he now have another shot at answering the two questions that I asked him? First, why did he not make this application before, and what makes it particularly favourable now? Secondly, what will he do to reassure producers who now stand in a very dangerous situation?

Mr. Silkin: I tried to illuminate the right hon. Gentleman's mind. I said that the trouble with Article 135 is that it is a temporary provision and that what I have been after since September is a permanent solution. That is what I have been pressing for on every occasion. The subsidy was an immediate effort, by which I tried to come to the rescue of British pig producers. If the right hon. Gentleman studies Article 135 he will probably come to the same conclusion as I did—that that was not the appropriate moment to do it. It was only when the temporary subsidy was challenged—as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the United Kingdom still reserves its position on the legality of that—and it was ruled that I could not continue paying the subsidy, that I invoked Article 135.

Mr. Urwin: Now do you understand?

Sir David Renton: Has not a great deal of the trouble which our pig producers have suffered been caused by the subsidies paid to Danish and Dutch pig producers sending their pigs to this country? What representations has the Minister made to his European colleagues among Agriculture Ministers about that? Is that process to continue indefinitely? Was this matter brought to the notice of the Court? If it was not, will it be brought to the Court's notice when the substantive hearing is held?

Mr. John Ellis: Where have you been for the last six months?

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is some months out of date. That is exactly what I have been putting forward, not only to my fellow Ministers

In the Council but to the Commissioner and it has appeared in the Court hearings and will no doubt take its part, although I am obviously not conducting that case, in the substantive action before the European Court. The point is very simple: the MCAs are wrongly calculated and because they are wrongly calculated we need to recalculate them. I have said that over and over again to my colleagues.

Mr. Gerry Fowler: Will the Minister, with whose efforts I have every sympathy, accept that even the temporary subsidy, legal or illegal, was not adequate? Will he accept that in the long run it is not simply the pig producer and processor but the housewife who will pay. whether through increased prices for pigmeat or through repercussive increased prices for other meat, and that that in the end will endanger the Government's whole economic strategy, through its repercussions on wages policy?

Mr. Silkin: I readily accept everything that my right hon. Friend says. He is perfectly correct. That is exactly why at this stage I have told the Commission that it must consider the matter in the light, as Article 135 says, of an economic disaster—I forget whether that is the word, but it comes to a disaster—within our own economy.

Mr. Body: Does the Minister accept that between 70 per cent. and 75 per cent. of the costs of most pig producers are attributable to feeding stuffs? The essential reason why pig producers are now in a state of hardship is that while they were able to buy feeding stuffs for £25 a ton before we entered the Common Market, the price now to be paid is about £125. The reason for the increase of £100 a ton is that the price of cereals has been artificially raised by a system of import levies. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that feeding stuffs would be £20-£25 a ton cheaper but for the system of import levies?

Mr. Silkin: I absolutely accept that the high costs that the British pig producers, and perhaps other pig producers in Europe, are facing are due to the excessively high cost of cereals. That is one of the reasons why we have been trying to keep down prices as far as we could. However, we are one out of nine. It is that disadvantage that sometimes


prevents us from giving the right answer at the right time.

Mr. Watkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Gloucestershire the pig industry is in danger of annihilation? Are his Common Market colleagues, who have recently been in this country, fully aware of the gravity of the situation for British pig farmers? Will he give a categorical undertaking that he stands by the pig industry and will support it at the end of the day, come what may from Europe?

Mr. Silkin: I am aware that, not only in Gloucestershire, the British pig industry is in a very bad position and that, as has been said, this affects the whole economy. After yesterday's demonstration, some of my fellow Agriculture Ministers may be rather more aware of the facts than they were before.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very little in what he said this afternoon will give any reassurance or confidence to pig producers in Herefordshire? There is considerable confusion over the differential treatment of pig producers in Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman outline the reasons for the different subsidies that are provided to enable the pig producer there to stay in business while here it is threatened with annihilation, as the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson) said?

Mr. Silkin: There are a number of technical reasons. One is that there has been a unanimous Council decision in regard to Northern Ireland. Secondly, there is, or has been said to be, a smuggling trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic, or between the Republic and Northern Ireland—I am never quite certain whether it is either or both. That does not exist in our own country. Finally, I was not trying to be reassuring; I was trying to be realistic and to give the true position.

Mr. Spearing: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that his most vociferous critics and those who appear most unclear about the situation are those Opposition Members who vociferously advocated our entry into the Common Market and our subjugation to the Treaty of Rome and Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act? As they clearly did not understand the implications of what

they were doing then, is it not high time, in the light of this incident, that they reconsidered their position in regard to the Act and the Treaty?

Mr. Silkin: I have several times said that I cannot answer for Opposition Members. They must answer for themselves. My immediate problem, regardless of the wider question, is to do the best I can for our own pig industry, and that I intend to do.

Mr. Marten: I hope that the Minister will not think that I am being unduly suspicious, but may I suggest that perhaps the Danes and the Dutch are trying to capture a large part of our market in this country under the guise of this racket? Secondly, would it not be better for the British people and the British pig producers if we had our own national pig policy?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, even on a temporary basis, I tried to get our own national pig policy, and at present I have been stopped from doing so.

Mr. Gould: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, by virtue of the European Communities Act, to persist with the national subsidy would have involved him in a breach of domestic law? Is not the escape from that and similar dilemmas in the future to amend the Act?

Mr. Silkin: On questions of law, it is far better if I leave things to my right hon. and learned brother, the Attorney-General.

Mr. Benyon: Will the Minister accept that for the processors, as opposed to the producers, the subsidy is really irrelevant, and that the only proper answer is recalculation of the MCAs? Does he also accept that the time scale is crucial? When is the earliest point that action can be taken under Article 135? Exactly how long can that go on? Is it until January?

Mr. Silkin: It would have to end on 1st January 1978. For me, the whole basis was to have it as an insurance policy while we were finding a permanent solution, which the hon. Gentleman rightly says is necessary.
With regard to the timing, the Commission has very wide powers, as the hon. Gentleman will see if he cares to look at


the Article. The Commission could come to a decision this afternoon or at any time, but I do not know when it will do so. I do know that at the Press conference Commissioner Gundelach gave the impression, I think explicitly, that if he could avoid it there would be no gap at all.

Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us who believe that there is a tremendous need to defend the pig producers believe that we must equally defend the consumers? Is he also aware that we believe that it is not possible to reconcile both aims within the confines laid down by the common agricultural policy? Therefore, may I put a straight question to my right hon. Friend? Would we not be better off in this respect outside the Community?

Mr. Silkin: If one were thinking of pig producers alone—that is what my hon. Friend is asking me about—one could arrive at one of two solutions. One would be to say "Yes. That might very well be right." The second would be that if the pigmeat MCAs—which are distorted export subsidies applying against our pig producers—were correctly calculated, our pig industry would be extremely healthy and, I believe, more competitive than any in Europe.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call the four hon. Members who have been standing.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I should like to ask two questions in support of two important matters raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). First, if Mr. Gundelach advised our pig producers not to slaughter their breeding herds, did he also indicate how they were to feed the pigs that they do not have enough money to feed? Secondly, if the Minister's application under Article 135 is not dealt with speedily, what action will he take after 11th June? He has discussed this in broad terms, but can he give the House accurate information on what plans he has to deal with this crisis?

Mr. Silkin: The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Not at this stage", because the Commissioner

has promised that the matter will be dealt with urgently. Therefore, it would be both inappropriate and perhaps a little discourteous to look at alternatives that may or may not have to be brought into effect then.

Mr. Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the devastatingly knowledgeable submissions made by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) and others, the current farce seems to indicate that by our very joining the EEC we have more or less bought a pig in a poke?

Mr. Silkin: I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. However, the question that I am concerned with now is related solely to the United Kingdom pigmeat industry.

Mr. Wiggin: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if there are no alternative arrangements on 11th June there will be a substantial agricultural catastrophe in this country? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has impressed this point upon his colleagues in the Commission. Did his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) about delay in implementing Article 135 mean that he did not believe that the crisis was bad enough last autumn? If so, there are tens of thousands of pig producers who do not agree with him.

Mr. Silkin: The House has to understand exactly what Article 135 is about. It is a temporary request for help in a particular set of circumstances. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is talking without reading the Article. I suggest that he reads it. He will find that it was quite inappropriate last autumn. It is not very helpful to his case, or to mine, to suggest that it was appropriate at that time.

Mr. Urwin: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he has acquired a well-earned reputation as a worthy champion of our agriculture industry, as well as acting in the best interests of consumers? Is he aware that there are those of us who have reservations about the Common Market who wish him well in his negotiations on behalf of the pig industry? Does he accept that to serve the best interests of the British people, his major responsibility is to convince his counterparts in Europe


that there is a vital necessity for a fundamental reappraisal of the whole common agricultural policy.

Mr. Silkin: A reappraisal of the CAP was an issue that was discussed at the Council of Agriculture Ministers at its meeting last Tuesday. Arrangements have been made for further and more detailed discussions.

Mr. Biffen: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that use of Article 135 is having recourse to a temporary lever to secure a permanent solution—namely, a fundamental recalculation of the monetary compensatory arrangements? Will he further confirm that if, having had recourse to that somewhat uncertain instrument, we are left after 11th June in a situation in which there is no protection for British pig producers, there will be a novel and highly explosive situation? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that for decades and generations, constituents have come to this place in the belief that it had within its authority the right to restore what they believed to be wrong? Will he indicate to his fellow Ministers that there will be a growing belief that the European Court of Justice is an alien form of jurisdiction, and that it will not be

worth their while to insist upon such rigorous regard to the present rules, and that they should have far greater regard to political sensitivities in this country.

Mr. Silkin: I have tried to explain very fully to the Commission and to my fellow Ministers—as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not they who are concerned under Article 135—how explosive the situation will be. I hope that both have taken due note of that point.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Returning Officers (Scotland) Act 1977
2. Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977
3. New Towns (Scotland) Act 1977
4. Rent (Agriculture) (Amendment) Act 1977
5. British Transport Docks Act 1977
6. Immediate Transportation (Delivery Warrants) Act 1977.

ADJOURNMENT (SPRING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House at its rising tomorrow do adjourn till Monday 13th June.—[Mr. Tinn.]

4.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: Before we pass the motion I wish, briefly, to ask the Government some questions on two subjects. The first subject is fishing. I have taken part, either in debates in the Chamber or in meetings with Ministers, in fishing discussions practically weekly. As Ministers are aware, the importance of the British plea for a 50-mile national limit is very great. They have said that, to some extent, it strengthens their hand in Brussels if it is constantly reiterated.
In taking a constituency point of view, apart from the general arguments in favour of the limit—namely, the need for conservation and an adequate future for our fishing industry—if the stocks in the North sea were seriously depleted, as they would be if a free-for-all were allowed within a 200 mile limit, some of the Shetland Islands would be without any form of employment. The inhabitants on Skerries, for example, might well have to be evacuated.
Apart from the fishermen, fish processing naturally depends upon fishing and is vital to the islands. Nor is the situation made any easier by oil. There is a danger that the fishermen, seeing their future in jeopardy, may go to the oil industry, which may be of very short-term duration, taken against the history of Shetland.
The particular issue that I wish to draw to the Government's attention, and to ask them about, is the interim judgment given by the European Court on Saturday last, which concerns the Irish claim to extend their limits. It is an interesting judgment. It begins by indicating that the Irish claim might present great difficulties to the common fisheries policy, which indeed it might. It goes on to state that it is not prepared to suspend the Irish claim. In the report in The Times, it appears that the court stated:
Although such suspension may appear justified in principle, it is appropriate also to take into account the consequences for the conservation of maritime resources, of the simple abolition of a measure whose efficacy and appropriateness can only be definitely

assessed in the context of the proceedings on the substance of the case.
It goes on to state:
It is therefore appropriate, before giving judgment on the interim measure requested by the Commission, to give the parties an opportunity to agree within a short space of time upon an alternative solution which might be substituted for the measures forming the subject matter of the proceedings".
The court has asked the parties—namely, the Commission and the Irish—to go away until 18th June, which is just after we return from our so-called holiday. The court will resume its sittings on 22nd June. What happens in the intervening period will be of the greatest importance to North Sea fisheries. Am I right in thinking that the Government have no standing in the case? For instance, could they ask to be re-represented? If that is not possible, do they intend to send an observer when the case is re-opened? Will they consider asking whether they can take some part in the discussions?
What is decided for Ireland will be important to the British case. I have long argued that as far as possible we should work in collaboration with the Irish, whose interests basically are very much the same as our own. There is a common need to protect fish stocks around our islands. I hope that the Government will say something about their attitude to the interim judgment and what part they hope to play in the discussions that are to take place.
The second matter to which I draw attention is the statement made in Committee on the Price Commission Bill about the future of the prices and incomes policy. It would clearly be out of order to debate the matter in detail at this stage, but surely it is important that a further statement is made by the Government as soon as possible, if not before the recess, about the implications of the statement.
As I understand it, the Minister takes the view that it represents nothing new. He indicated on Second Reading that the policy probably will not continue beyond next year. He has said that this means that it will not be automatically renewed. He has left open the issue whether the whole matter should be brought before Parliament again. I do not express any view about that, but it appears to be widely accepted throughout


the country that there has been a departure from Government policy. It would be useful to know the true position of the Government.
There is a great deal to be said for a return to a greater degree of free bargaining, but we should not delude ourselves, as free bargaining can take place over only a limited part of the economy. So long as much of the economy is in the hands of public monopolies, there is no reality in free bargaining. What their workers can get is what the nationalised industries can obtain from the Government, the Government obtaining their resources through the taxpayer.
I also think it highly undesirable that, as happened before, pressure should be built up behind the dam, which would suddenly burst on the country with great demands for higher wages, salaries, prices and dividends all at once. There may be a case for a change in the structure, but, until production rises, there can be no case for an overall increase in wages, salaries and dividends. I think that the House should spend a little time on this matter before we leave for the Whitsun Recess.

4.51 p.m.

Sir Harold Wilson: I do not propose to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) in what he said, except to say that he will stir up a lot of support on both sides of the House about the treatment of the fishing industry and the unsatisfactory position in which it finds itself in the negotiations.
For my part, I intend to intervene only briefly to express the hope that, before the House adjourns for the Spring Recess, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will indicate more precisely than has been done so far the extent and scope of the inquiry that the Government intend to institute into the issues aroused by the actions of the Daily Mail.
In so doing, I shall follow strictly Mr. Speaker's ruling yesterday and confine myself to previous parallel cases not now the subject of judicial proceedings. I have raised this matter with Mr. Speaker informally. While everyone fully accepts that his ruling is binding in judicial cases and follows the report of the Select Committee of 1963, accepted by the House, I presume that, in so ruling, he was not

in any way qualifying the ruling given by his predecessor Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd in the early 1970s in relation to civil actions.
It will be recalled that at that time the House was anxious about the fact that there had been the Distillers' case on thalidomide—a libel case lasting 11 years—in which no action was taken to bring it to court. Speaking from the Opposition Benches, and with the support of a considerable number of Conservative Back Benchers then sitting on the Government side, I asked that the House should not be inhibited from debating it. Mr. Speaker Selwyn Lloyd made an important breach in past practice, and the House was able to debate the matter. I presume that is not in any way set aside because of the different circumstances today from that particular unpressed, unprosecuted thalidomide claim.
The Daily Mail—this goes back beyond the active memories of the oldest hon. Members of this House, though perhaps not beyond that of the noble Lord Shinwell in another place, but none of us here can recall the details—has been a pedlar of forgeries through the years for one aim only: to influence General Elections either in process or in prospect and to discredit Labour leaders. I say nothing of last week's events, but we can draw our own conclusions.
The record of the Daily Mail goes back to the Zinoviev letter, now widely accepted by all the authorities to have been a forgery. That letter was peddled by the Daily Mail with devastating results on the 1924 election. I refer hon. Members who would like to refresh their knowledge of this matter to the full account in the biography of Ramsay MacDonald, recently published by our late colleague David Marquand, on page 381 and the considerable number of pages which follow.
Then there was the Milhench case. The Daily Mail knew at sight that that letter was a forgery. It said so in evidence at the trial. Yet it splashed it with the title "Was it a forgery?" If it knew that it was, why ask, why publish it, except that it knew, or thought, that an election was impending? It had been told earlier by my Press Officer that it was a forgery, though it had at the beginning regarded it as something real and as a means to discredit me in election week.
I take another case—also the Daily Mail. I do not think that other newspapers in Fleet Street behave like this. They have not the same track record in the matter of forgeries. There was a case which greatly disturbed hon. Members on both the sides of the House at the time. There were allegations that the then Leader of the House, Edward Short—now a noble Lord—had a secret numbered bank account in Zurich. There was no such bank account. It had never existed. That was proved, though reported with rather less space when it was proved. The only allegation had come from a Trotskyite paper of indeterminate origin, but the Daily Mail could not resist splashing it. We see it pontificate about the extreme Left-wing danger to our system of society, but it is not above using a most extreme and irresponsible Trotskyite publication—it did not even carry its address—to discredit a Labour Government.
One must, therefore, ask about its standards. Why? Because, since the first Rothermere was rocked in his cradle, he imbibed from his nurse the doctrine that mud always sticks.
Because of Mr. Speaker's ruling, there are questions that we cannot put about the present situation. It is the first time in my experience that the whole of the rest of the Press has been highly critical—no doubt for good reasons. It may be something to do with a circulation battle. I would not know about these matters. There are questions that we cannot put in this House at this time. But the Royal Commission, which has been asked to look into the matter or any other inquiry can.
There are one or two general issues arising from the earlier cases which may become germane later when all these judicial proceedings are over. In common with the vast number of hon. Members, other than hon. and learned Members, I am no expert in the law. I have never tried to be. If I had, I should never have succeeded. I know that I carry most of the House with me in that.
If, in any of the cases to which I have referred, the Daily Mail believed that the documents were true, genuine, not forgeries, it must equally have believed them to be stolen.
Is there no law about receiving stolen property in this country? If a crook robs an old man of his gold watch and hands it to a fence, the receiver, as I understand it, is open to a charge of being in possession of goods known to have been stolen. So, in any of these cases where the Daily Mail published documents in what, if I may coin a phrase in that connection, is good faith, believing them to have been genuine, it must simultaneously and by that very argument have believed them to be stolen. Therefore, it knew either that they were forgeries or that they were stolen. In either case, it is not a creditable position for it to defend.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has great exepertise in everything except the law, although he pontificates on the judiciary to great effect. I do not ask for a legal ruling today, but I hope that he will take note of these questions which I want to put to him. Is there one law for the underworld, which involves prison sentences for those receiving stolen property, and another law for the Daily Mail?
We hear of "slush money". That phrase has been used a lot in the last seven or eight days. Other papers, not necessarily unprejudiced, have printed stories—as far as I know, they have not been denied—of the thousands of pounds paid in respect of some of the forgeries, or truthful documents, printed by the Daily Mail. All we have had from the Daily Mail has been a statement that it was not £50,000. Of course not, it was £12,000. That, as far as I know, has not been denied. I am not in a position to express any authoritative view about these matters. But I have no doubt that very large sums were paid in the Milhench case for a story which the Daily Mail reporter on oath in court, claimed to have recognised on sight as a forgery. It paid that money for a forgery.
Of course, that is not true, because, two days before polling day, the Daily Mail approached my Press officer and tried to suggest that I had written it and put forward all kinds of assumptions. In the end it got a little frightened by the answers and did not press it until after polling day. The then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), was hoping to defeat us on the Queen's Speech, and the Daily Mail resurrected the story


because it thought that there was another election in immediate prospect. It knew in any case that the election could not be delayed more than six months. No one knows whether the Daily Mail paid for this, but, knowing that it was a forgery at sight, as it claimed, it went on with it because an election was in prospect and because of the doctrine that mud sticks—at any rate for the duration of an election.
I have said that I am not an expert in the law. The House will accept that by this time. But if the law allows anyone to be in possession of property that is known to be stolen, I submit that the law needs changing. It needs changing by this House. Equally, if the law allows payments of sums, large or small, of "slush money" by the Press for stolen property, legislation is needed. I say that this is also an issue for Parliament.
I have mentioned four cases. I shall conclude by asking the House whether this newspaper has ever acted in this way in respect of a Conservative Prime Minister. That is why I say that it is a little biased, to say the least.
I have placed in the Library my evidence to the Royal Commission about some of the incidents. That is contrary to precedent and proved to be a little difficult because if a Minister refers to a paper he must lay it on the Table of the House. I understand that the House has no facility for receiving documents from Back Benchers. But in this special case I have placed the evidence in the Library. There it stands and I stand by it.
My evidence refers to an incident in November 1964, soon after the Labour Government took office. There was a party at Downing Street for the successful Olympic athletes. The party had been arranged by our Conservative predecessors. The drink was bought in their time. The following Monday morning at 6 a.m. the Westminster refuse vehicles came to clear the dustbins. The Daily Mail was there photographing dustbins and empty bottles. Dustmen were induced to pose raising empty bottles to their lips. The photographs appeared in a double page centre spread in the Daily Mail to discredit the Government—what might be called dustbin muck-raking. Did that

happen to any Conservative Government? I do not believe that any other Fleet Street paper, some of which are very politically committed, would have done that.
Two months ago an ex-Labour Prime Minister was preparing to move into a new Westminster flat. Certain security precautions were taken, but while the decorations were being done, a Daily Mail representative trespassed, drew an architect's map of the flat and published it. Two Conservative ex-Prime Ministers have moved to premises within a few hundred yards. Did that happen to them? No the Daily Mail did not invade their flats.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider that before he replies. I hope that he will give the assurances for which I have asked and that the inquiry foreshadowed by the Prime Minister yesterday will be thorough and will not be a one-off incident.

Mr. Robert Adley: Will the right hon. Member accept from me that many hon. Members on this side of the House are equally disturbed by what the Daily Mail has done recently and pay it no credit for it. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that he is not suggesting that the Conservative Party has had any influence on the actions of the Daily Mail? The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps inadvertently, gave the impression that he might have believed that the Conservative Party had organised these events for its benefit.

Sir H. Wilson: I can give that absolute assurance. The Conservative Party does not have standards of that kind. Secondly, it can be only embarrassing for any party to read about such things by someone who claims to be an ally. I accept that this is probably all that happened. The hon. Member did not need to say what he said, but I am glad that he has put it on the record.
The Daily Mail and other newspapers are continually warning against the threat to our democracy from various kinds of Left-Wing doctrines, including Trotskyists. The Daily Mail is not above using such sources for headlines, as it did in the Ted Short case when it published scurrilous accusations which were lifted, without checking, from Trotskyist sources. When the Daily Mail published that story, of course it said that it could not be true.


But it was printed because mud always sticks.
What happened last week, and what has happened from the same stable in the past, is designed not to make Government impossible but a Government of which it disapproves impossible—at least for an extended period. The inculcation of this type of cynicism—the "mud sticks doctrine"—is a bigger threat to our democracy than anything that the Daily Mail seeks to publish.

5.6 p.m.

Sir Anthony Royle: I want to raise with the Leader of the House his statement this afternoon to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the prospects of legislation for direct elections. What are the Government's intentions on this legislation? The Leader of the House told my right hon. Friend that he intended to bring a communication before the House in the week after we return. I raised this matter with Mr. Speaker on a point of order. There was a further exchange between the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition when the Leader of the House deliberately did not clarify his previous comment. He also failed to reply to one of his hon. Friends who asked him the same question. Can the Leader of the House expand on that matter before we rise for the recess?
Why is it necessary for him to be so secretive about the Government's plans and intentions. The Government told us months ago that they would use their "best endeavours" to bring forward legislation for direct elections to the European Parliament. During the past year we have had debate after debate, questions have been asked of the Foreign Secretary and many questions have been asked of the Leader of the House at Business Questions on Thursdays.
We read in the newspapers that there are divisions within the Cabinet. I do not know whether those reports are accurate. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) will probably have a view about them. We read that the Leader of the House is a leader of the faction in the Cabinet that is deliberately stopping this legislation from being published and coming before the House.

Mr. John Lee: Good.

Sir A. Royle: The hon. Member may say "good" but this Government have made the promise and public pledge to our allies and friends in the European community, to the country and to the hon. Member's constituents that they will use their "best endeavours". For the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Mr. Lee) to mutter about that situation being "good" means that he is encouraging his Government to break a pledge and to dishonour their best endeavours to bring forward legislation.
If the Leader of the House is not leading such a faction or is not part of one, no doubt he will be able to tell us. As a democrat, why is he afraid of the House discussing the legislation and voting upon it? Perhaps the House will turn down the legislation. It may be that there will not be a majority for the Second Reading. There may not be a majority for the various clauses within the Bill when it comes before the House. However, surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the time has come when the House should be given a chance to see this legislation and to vote upon it.
We know that the legislation is in draft and that it could be sent to the printers tomorrow if the Cabinet would reach a decision on the type of system, which I understand—so we read and so I hear—is possibly the reason for the delay. If the Government would reach a conclusion quickly in Cabinet, the Bill could be published. It could be published this week, so that we could go away for the recess and consider it carefully, so that the Liberal faction in the House would be able to consider their position with regard to their allies, the Labour Government. We would then be able to return fresh from our recess, in a fortnight's time, having considered carefully the details of the legislation, and could have a swift debate on Second Reading and move into the Committee stage.
Therefore, I ask the Leader of the House to think about this matter again and to try to give us his views on the subject in a more meaningful way before this debate on the Adjournment motion finishes. It is not good enough to say to us "We shall be producing a communication when we come back". Will


the right hon. Gentleman please come clean with the House and tell us why the Government cannot either print the Bill now and introduce it in the first week that we come back, or at any rate introduce the Bill in that week? If he cannot give us that assurance, will he please explain why he cannot?
The second point that I wish to raise is a matter that I think will be coming before the House in the debate that is to follow, but it is a point that I wish to raise now because it affects the whole of the London area in a very major way. That is the proposal by the London Airports Authority to go ahead with the construction of a fourth terminal at London Airport. The construction of such a fourth terminal will inevitably mean an increase in traffic at Heathrow Airport. This will affect drastically the residents living in the London area.
The details of this proposal will no doubt be discussed in the debate on airport policy that is to follow. However, I should like to have an assurance from the Lord President this afternoon before we decide to adjourn for the Jubilee Recess. If the London Airports Authority is not prepared to carry out proper consultation with the various local authorities in the area around London Airport, I believe that this House should not rise at the end of this week. I believe that we should sit next week and that we should ask the Lord President to insist to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that the London Airports Authority should, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and myself have pressed on the Minister on several occasions, consult, for instance, the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames, which it has totally ignored in the consultations that it has been carrying out.
I have raised this matter on many occasions, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham, and the Authority has still ignored the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. Other boroughs will also be affected by any increase in traffic into or out of London Airport.
We know that during this time of the year, particularly over the next month, there will be a dramatic increase in charter flights and shuttle flights. I should like to know—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham

would share my questioning on this aspect of the subject—why these shuttle and charter flights cannot go into other airports in the United Kingdom. Why should most of them come into Heathrow? This is causing a great deal of concern and worry. During the next fortnight, when we rise for the Jubilee Recess—or the Whitsun Recess, Spring Bank Holiday Recess or whatever one cares to call it—there is no doubt that the shuttle flights and charter flights will increase into London Airport, and the inconvenience and disturbance to my constituents in Richmond will get worse, and inconvenience and disturbance to residents living in the London area will be very grave indeed.
Therefore, I should be most grateful it the Lord President, when he answers the debate, could answer, first, the points that I made about the Bill on direct elections and, secondly, give an assurance that instructions will be given to the London Airports Authority to consult all the local authorities that will suffer from an increase in traffic into London Airport before we decide to pass the motion.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: While in no way dissenting from the proposal to adjourn, I feel that the House should not do so until it has had the opportunity of considering a matter which has for so long been discussed and on which nothing satisfactory has been resolved. I refer to the proposal to set up information booths at Euston Station and Victoria Coach Station, where young people coming to London might be advised in such matters as accommodation, jobs, social services and the like.
Concern for the homeless led to the setting up of a number of voluntary associations in the late 1960s, and in Parliament in the early 1970s an all-party group, the Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless—usually referred to as CHAR—was set up to work with the voluntary organisations. Regular meetings and visits to projects dealing with this problem were undertaken. There was complete liaison with the various organisations in all parts of the country, including Scotland. In particular, we welcomed the Yorkshire Television documentary "Johnny Go Home" in July 1975, which captured the public interest and led to the demand for action to deal with the


problem of those young people who come to London completely unaware of the pitfalls that might beset them. We are concerned that the momentum should not be lost.
The idea of information booths at the main points of entry into the capital was an obvious corollary to the concern aroused by the television presentation, and in September 1975 the London Council of Social Services set up a working party of interested voluntary agencies. The value of this idea of booths was that it would be effective but also relatively cheap. In March 1976 it published a document—"Help For The Other Travellers". This recommended two information booths—one at Euston and one at Victoria Coach Station. At all times the working party was in complete contact with the Government Working Group on Young Homeless People, a group which was set up because of public clamour and parliamentary insistence.
I do not want to weary the House with a history of the intricate negotiations between the interested bodies. It is sufficient to say that while at first British Rail and the National Bus Company seemed to be responsive and co-operative, these attitudes became more and more negative, so that at present nothing has been accomplished. It is true that the Home Office offered possible financial support to existing agencies for alternatives, but it was felt that none was viable without the support of these booths.
We should not confuse the need that those agencies are serving and that of the booths. Those agencies are grant-aided because they have argued their case in terms of the need for them that at present exists. They and other agencies feel that there is a gap in the chain in making early contact with those young people who will need the services of those agencies and in intercepting those who initially do not need social support but merely accommodation before they need both. This service is currently not provided by any statutory or voluntary body. There is no duplication in this matter.
When people arrive in London for the first time, whether by train or coach, or even by hitch-hiking, there is nowhere they can turn immediately to obtain a

free comprehensive guide to facilities, accommodation, employment and sources of help. Even if they happen to know or accidentally stumble upon a particular agency, it may be closed, or they may feel apprehensive about asking for help. This was very well illustrated in "Johny Go Home", where there was an evident aversion to the official approach. Indeed, if the booths were set up, they might be so designed and manned as to attract people, especially the sort of person who is wary of asking for help.
As a result of this lack of direction combined with an alarming overall shortage of suitable accommodation, too many people, particularly young people, fall into a destructive life-style, which may include petty crime, drugs, prostitution and alcohol, not long after arriving in London. This points to the need for a preventive service aimed at reaching on first arrival people who need accurate information and individual guidance.
As I have already indicated, there has been some question whether setting up booths is the best way of dealing with the problem. I am informed that there is already a precedent in other countries where such services have been available for a long time. At the very least, let us set up a scheme for an experimental period in the first instance.
By careful monitoring, some useful information might be garnered about the mobility among the homeless young. This gap in knowledge has been pointed out in reports and is especially important in the context of rising youth unemployment, about which the House heard so much in Tuesday's debate.
The House might recollect the Gleaves case. Indeed, there may be many hon. Members for whom that unsavoury scandal is now a whisper from the distant past. But unless the Home Office shows a willingness to take positive action, the occurrence of such another case will cause a storm of public reaction. I hope that my right hon. Friend will draw that to the attention of the Home Office. The Home Office should make a firm commitment to the principle of the information booths, and by acting with some urgency overcome the obstacles which have been raised in various quarters during the past two years.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I believe that the House should not adjourn until it has considered further some of the unpleasant and unacceptable implications and effects of the Government's closed shop legislation, namely, the Trade Unions and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976, which was piloted on its somewhat stormy passage through the House by the Lord President in his previous reincarnation.
I wish to draw attention today to one particular case which highlights the evils of this legislation and to discuss the case of my constituent, Mr. Kenneth Edwards, of St. Peters Park Road. Broadstairs, who has been dismissed from his job simply and solely because he has declined, on genuine grounds of conscience, to join a trade union. As a result of his conscientious objection, and for no other reason, Mr. Edwards has been victimised by the trade union and compulsorily thrown on the dole without any compensation.
This is a classic case of the denial of a man's right to work and the abuse of trade union power. I believe it is right that the House of Commons, which traditionally has been a forum where individual liberties are upheld, should hear the details of an individual case which demonstrates only too painfully how the closed shop legislation can viciously penalise an innocent man who simply wants the right to work.
My constituent is a forty-year-old skilled worker who until the end of March was employed by Petbow Holdings Limited, a highly successful company based at Sandwich specialising in the manufacture of generating equipment, for which it has won several Queen's Awards. Mr. Edwards had his job for more than four and a half years. He was a highly skilled panel wireman, a job for which he was earning, with bonuses, about £80 a week. He was a first-class worker—that is universally acknowledged—and the company wanted to continue to employ him.
However, in February this year Petbow signed a closed shop agreement with the trades union leaders who were representatives of the ETU, AUEW, GMWU and the Boilermakers Society. It may well be that all the parties to this agreement signed it in the sincere belief that a closed

shop at Petbow's would benefit industrial relations. Nevertheless, it has become clear from subsequent events that this closed shop agreement made woefully inadequate provision for safeguarding the individual rights of any worker who for reasons of deeply held personal conviction or conscience wished to continue his job at Petbow without joining a union.

Mr. Peter Rees: I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish to emphasise that Petbow has up to now had an enviably good reputation with regard to its employees and has made an almost unparalleled contribution to exports, having won the Queen's Award four times.

Mr. Aitken: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, in whose constituency this company has its main factory. He is absolutely right in what he says. Before I end my remarks, I shall indeed be paying special tribute to the efforts that Petbow have made not only to industrial relations in general but also in trying to solve the particular difficulties of this individual.
Mr. Edwards is a man of good character, quiet disposition but a certain independence of mind. In no way does he deserve to be labelled as a trouble maker, a member of the awkward squad or a Right-wing militant. He has never been a member of any political party and describes himself as "non-political". Although he has never been a member of a union, he has on at least one occasion supported industrial action taken by a union at Petbow. Thus it can hardly be said that he is someone who is always out of step with his fellow workmates.
However, where Mr. Edwards personally drew the line in his relationship with other workers was when he refused, on grounds of sincere personal belief, to be compelled to join a union. I would quote Mr. Edwards' own words:
I believe it is entirely wrong that trade unions should be allowed to force people to join a trade union under threat of denying them the right to earn a living. It should be the right of everybody to decide which organisation they wish to join or not to join without far of reprisal. Therefore my conscience will not allow me to support or follow the unions in any way.
Mr. Edwards stuck to his principles and as a result, on 25th March this year, he received a letter from Mr. A. C. Pate,


the personnel manager of Petbow, whose opening paragraph said:
Dear Mr. Edwards, I regret to inform you that with effect from 31st March 1977 your employment with the company will be terminated as you did not join the appropriate trade union within the specified period of 28 days. This is in accordance with the company/union close shop agreement.
Thus the unfortunate Mr. Edwards was fired. He is now on the dole and he and his wife and two children are undergoing considerable financial hardship. When he came to see me at a recent constituency surgery I told him that I would do everything to help him, including raising the case on the Floor of the House. Since then the Conciliation and Arbitration Service has been doing its best to break the impasse. As a result, Petbow has offered to reinstate Mr. Edwards to his former job and has also offered to pay an annual sum of money equivalent to Mr. Edwards' union fees into the funds of the relevant union, in this case the ETU.
I do not think that in all the circumstances Petbow could have done more to put right the original wrong done to Mr. Edwards. I think the company has behaved honourably. Unfortunately, the leaders of the unions at Petbow have not made a comparable response. To their great discredit, the unions have so far refused to meet the company's offer half way or, indeed, any way at all. I understand that they are insisting that Mr. Edwards signs a membership form for the union, but that is precisely what his conscience will not allow him to do.
I must say that I regard the attitude of the union leaders as an indefensible denial of a man's right to work, and I appeal to Mr. Edwards' fellow workers at Petbow to think again. Surely the unions can exercise a little tolerance towards this genuine conscientious objector. The House will recall that 47,000 men were allowed to be conscientious objectors in the last war. Cannot the trade union movement tolerate a much smaller handful of conscientious objectors in British industry who feel deeply about union membership? Cannot the 800-strong work force at Petbows tolerate one single conscientious objector in their midst? The working people of Thanet and East Kent are traditionally a sensible and moderate sector of the community. I appeal to those of them who work at Petbow to see

whether a better balance between trade union power and freedom of individual conscience cannot now be struck.
When the Lord President answers the debate, I hope that he will support this appeal and urge the unions to take a more conciliatory stand. I believe it is a moral outrage on our society that anyone can be denied the right to work simply because he has sought to express his sincere personal conviction. It is also a most weird aspect of the Government's closed shop legislation that Mr. Edwards' objection to union membership would have been acceptable under the Act if it had been made on religious grounds. How bizarre that the Labour Party, with its long history of support for freedom of conscience for athiests, unbelievers or anyone else, should now take that view and confine itself to accepting only the narrow grounds of religious objection with regard to closed shops.
But the case of Mr. Edwards is by no means an isolated one. Up and down the country there are individual workers who do not want to join trade unions but who are being blackmailed and bullied by the threat of dismissal into signing on the dotted line against their will. One such man is Mr. Edwards. There are many others at this time, particularly in the world of journalism where many uncomfortable pressures are building up.
I wish to comment on the extraordinary speech by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). When he rose to his feet I hoped that he would speak in the tone of an elder statesman. It was deeply disappointing to hear a speech which sounded like a tired old gramophone record playing out the same tune of paranoia of his dislike of the Press. It was the right hon. Gentleman's legislation which introduced the closed shop in journalism which is causing so much chaos today. We as MPs are sent to this place not just to pass laws but to preserve liberties, and I hope that my short speech will encourage people to champion the cause of individual conscience in trade union membership.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: It is ironic that I should be following a member of the Aitken family who has been speaking about pressures on newspapers. I wish to raise a subject which should be urgently considered before this


House rises for the Whitsun Recess. I do not believe that it should rise for the recess until my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has secured from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection an undertaking that any bid for Beaverbrook Newspapers shall be referred to the Monopolies Commission should that bid come during the recess.
We are all somewhat alarmed at what is happening to the crumbling Aitken family empire. I hope that the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) will listen to what I shall say, because I do not intend to make a rancorous speech, simply to defend the interests of our fellow NUJ members who are deeply worried about a possible take-over of Beaverbrook Newspapers, and even of the possible closure of the London Evening Standard.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Thanet, East, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who was once the boy-editor of the Evening Standard in a previous incarnation, will agree with me about the qualities of that newspaper and what a loss it would be, not merely to the City of London but to journalism in Britain, if it were to be summarily closed or were to be permitted to continue briefly in some atrophied existence as a 100,000-plus circulation publication for the City of London alone.
What has been going on in the Beaverbrook empire? Over the past few months it seems that Sir Max Aitken and his family have been considering to whom their empire should be sold. There have been negotiations about a possible merger between the Evening Standard and the Evening News. Hon. Members, of all political persuasions, have had representations made to them by members of the work forces at both the Evening News and the Evening Standard. It is no purpose of mine to make odious comparisons between the qualities of the two newspapers. I tend to read the Evening Standard, but many people read the Evening News and enjoy it, and London would be the poorer without either. The capital should be able to support two evening newspapers with a joint circulation of 1 million-plus.
There is a growing danger that those who work for this ailing newspaper empire, which is now about to be broken

up and sold off, will be put in pawn to people who should not be allowed to buy up those newspapers and those livelihoods, perhaps closing down these places of work, without some serious scrutiny from the Monopolies Commission. I shall come later to the position of Mr. Vere Harmsworth and all he represents. I do not wish to make any great attack today on the editor whom he refuses to remove or on the Daily Mail. I gather that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) has already done so, and I endorse some of the things he said.
When we look at the activities of that newspaper and the three or four onslaughts that it has made upon some of the political parties in this House in recent years, I think that we can call to mind the old phrase which occurs, I think, in one of Ian Fleming's books:
Once may be happenstance, twice may be coincidence, but three times is enemy action.
We have had, three times or more, examples of the way in which a particular newspaper within the Associated Newspapers Group attacked unscrupulously not only this Government but prominent people in the Labour and Liberal parties and those associated with them. So there is cause for concern about one of the potential piranha fish presently threshing around in these murky waters.
There is particular concern because, whoever buys up the Evening Standard, or the whole Beaverbrook group, whether it be Sir James Goldsmith of Cavenham or Mr. Rowland of Lonrho, or whether it is the wilting empire of the Rothermere family, there will be a significant diminution in the quality of newspapers and journalism in this country.
We have been told that the various bids by Sir James Goldsmith and Mr. Tiny Rowland have been rejected and that they are unsatisfactory to the aging and ailing Sir Max Aitken. The two representatives of these great newspaper dynasties, who are so loud in their protestations about the need to maintain and uphold the traditional freedoms of the Press, have, I understand from a Sunday newspaper, had a meeting to determine the terms upon which the Beaverbrook empire might be sold to Associated Newspapers. I do not think that that can be done without this House and the Government taking an interest. I believe that


they should take an interest because it would be a fundamentally and very seriously damaging blow to British journalism were we to allow the whole of this newspaper empire to be taken over and bought up.
We are told in one of the Sunday newspapers that there has so far been no more than an offer for the Evening Standard, and that this would mean an Evening Standard and Evening News merger. The companies are now considering the future of the entire Beaverbrook group, and Associated Newspapers will make a bid if it can get the approval of Sir Max Aitken. Associated Newspapers and its bankers, Warburg, have been to see Sir Max about this.
The Evening News and, in a different way, the Evening Standard, are making losses. It is no answer to the problems of Fleet Street to close them down, or to attempt to cover up the losses of one by buying out another in the hope that one might be able, by this cannibalistic blood transfusion, to continue with the practices of hitherto.

Mr. Aitken: May I ask the hon. Member to accept what is common knowledge, that for some time I have had no personal professional interest in Beaverbrook Newspapers? The hon. Gentleman is living in cloud-cuckoo land when he makes this great tirade against Sir Max Aitken and Vere Harmsworth without mentioning in any way the basic economic facts of life which are that, due to quite disgraceful overmanning and excessive costs in the industry, Beaverbrook Newspapers and every other newspaper company in the country is losing money. Beaverbrook is more vulnerable than any other because it has no outside interest to sustain it. All the tirades against the proprietors are one-sided if they do not include some comment on the overmanning and excessively high costs in the industry.

Mr. Whitehead: I did not think that I was launching a tirade against Sir Max Aitken. I have a certain sympathy for the position in which he finds himself. I understand that he is not the man that his father was—perhaps he never was. Because of the hereditary patterns of ownership in British newspapers, he is perhaps disposing of the fortunes of the

people who work in three major newspapers, at least one of which—the Sunday Express—is, I understand, making a profit.
I accept the personal comment by the hon. Member for Thanet, East, and I do not in any sense attempt to draw him into this. It simply seemed ironic that I should be speaking after him in view of his remarks about journalism and the threats to it.
As for his last intervention, I think that I accept, as do all the journalists who have been to see me, that it may well be that the new technologies are the saving of evening newspapers with the problems that they face, particularly in the metropolis, and that serious attention will have to be given to the problems the hon. Gentleman raised. This is perfectly well understood, even if it has not been adopted across the negotiating table.
To close down the Evening Standard or to reduce that paper to one of mini-circulation and of an up-market quality will leave us with—God save us all—the Evening Mail as the only mass circulation newspaper, based on, of all things, the Daily Mail. This would be disastrous, especially to those of us who rely very much on the news media for our information. It would be a threat to democracy as such.
As I told the hon. Member for Thanet, East, I was not launching a tirade against Sir Max Aitken, but there are elements of reproof in what I have said about Mr. Vere Harmsworth. I stick to those comments. Speaking at a dinner given by the Institute of Public Relations Mr. Harmsworth said:
Integrity of reporting, justice, tolerance and fairly held opinions: these are the criteria that I believe are vital not only to the future of our Press but to the future of our whole nation.
I must say to the House that in the practice of running his own newspapers Mr. Harmsworth has hardly lived up to that. Is he a fit and proper person to take over the Evening Standard? Maybe the hon. Member for Thanet, East thinks that he is.
I quote from the words of a distinguished former editor of the Evening Standard, Mr. Charles Wintour, who expressed very proper concern about Mr. Harmsworth. He said:
May I suggest that the only reason why Mr. Harmsworth is chairman of Associated


Newspapers is that he is the son of the second Lord Rothermere. And the second Lord Rothermere had the job because he was the son of the first Lord Rothermere. And the first Lord Rothermere had the Daily Mail because he was the brother of a real newspaper genius, Lord Northcliffe.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: If the hon. Member says that newspaper owners and proprietors are becoming, to put it kindly, hyperbolic, or, to be more blunt about it, hysterical, because they are worried about falling circulation and lack of profitability, what ultimate solutions are there to achieve the restoration of profits, other than subsidisation? What is the hon. Member proposing?

Mr. Whitehead: I will come to that if I have time, but I realise that this is a very brief debate. Next week we shall see the publication of the report of the Royal Commission on the Press and that might give the hon. Member for Harrow. East (Mr. Dykes) his answer. Certainly I have views. All I am saying about this is that there should not be this kind of enforced merger going through, leading to possible closures, without recourse to the Monopolies Commission and without this House and the country generally having an opportunity to study what the Royal Commission says in its report.
When I was a member of the Annan Committee inquiring into the future of broadcasting, considerable concern was expressed about whether there was a need for subsidy, or transfer of resources, or whether most newspapers should live within their means—a solution that would be painful to the print workers as well as the proprietors.
Some of the practices going on at present on the London evening newspaper scene cannot be seen as proper commercial practices. I quote again from Mr. Wintour's speech when he said:
Why is Mr. Vere Harmsworth chairman of Associated Newspapers? Why is he in a position to squander millions of his shareholders' money in an effort to force the Evening Standard out of business? Why has he been able to sell his evening newspaper (the Evening News) at an uneconomic price, to offer cut rates to advertisers who switch from the Evening Standard to his own paper, to start up costly and uneconomic ventures in the suburbs and to maintain an uneconomic circulation area—all with the aims of compelling his competitor to surrender?
Mr. Wintour is parti pris, because for 18 years he was editor of the Evening Standard. I cherish the Evening Standard

sufficiently—and its present editor, Mr. Simon Jenkins, is one of the youngest and ablest men in the job since my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—and I want to see the paper go on. I do not want to see it swallowed up by Vere Harmsworth without undertakings from the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. The House should not adjourn before we have those undertakings tonight.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Before the House adjourns for the Whit-sun Recess there are certain matters affecting Northern Ireland which should be brought to the attention of hon. Members.
It seems that yesterday it was announced that the Prime Minister had written to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) informing him that the Government had decided to refer the question of increased parliamentary representation for Northern Ireland to the Speaker's Conference which would be asked specifically to deal with that separate issue.
The announcement passed unnoticed here. The reason why it did not cause the slightest ripple of surprise in this House was that we are already aware that the matter cannot be delayed any longer, whether the Government like it or not. The Conservative Party has indicated that it would have placed the matter before a Speaker's Conference.
However, for some reason—and I think it was another propaganda exercise by the Government—the statement received widespread publicity in Northern Ireland yesterday. It was as if some major breakthrough had taken place. It sickens me that another attempt is being made by the Government, in collaboration with those arch-collaborators of the Unionist coalition group, to brainwash the Ulster people into believing that progress is being made towards peace in the Province or towards a political solution.
Of course it is right that Ulster should have proper representation in this House, particularly as the people bear the same burden of taxation as in the rest of the country. But it is political deceit for the Government, and the rump of the Unionist coalition group who are sustaining them in office, although they are not providing an adequate security policy for


Ulster, to give the impression to the Ulster people that they should go down on their knees in gratitude to the Government.
The Ulster people do not have to express their thanks. They go down on their knees every day and night in the hope that they will live through the night. It seems to me that whatever protection they get comes from God and not from the Government. This Government continue to pursue a policy of low profile.
Ulster will not receive full democratic rights from this Government and there is little sign of justice being done to the Province by this Government, who talk so much about the protection and democratic rights of people in all parts of the world but deny a proper democratic system of local government to Northern Ireland with adequate powers, deny us Stormont Parliament and deny representation of Ulster at the present time in the Common Market Parliament.
It is a disgrace that Northern Ireland, which is going through a period of crucifixion and a campaign of terror, should be treated as a second-class part of the United Kingdom. The righting of the wrongs which I have mentioned should come as a matter of priority before any increase in the number of Members from Northern Ireland.
Above all, many innocent people in Northern Ireland and gallant soldiers and policemen are denied the right to live. The recent workers' action strike caused the Secretary of State to put 3,000 extra soldiers into the Province, to mobilise the UDR and to put the police on 24-hour duty. There were road blocks everywhere and the Army was seen in force. Yet within three days of the ending of the strike the Secretary of State withdrew 2,000 of the troops, mobilisation ended most of the road blocks vanished and the soldiers who remained went back to the low profile policy adopted by the Government. Why were the extra troops not left in Northern Ireland, and other security measures maintained, in order to make a determined effort to defeat the terrorists who have been slaughtering and maiming innocent people in all parts of the Province for eight years—far longer than the Second World War, which nearly exhausted the British people.
It is extraordinary—and I deprecate the smile on the face of the Leader of the House and his humorous comments to his colleagues—to witness the restraint shown by the Ulster people in the face of terrible and bloody provocation over a period of eight years. It is sad that this House cannot work itself up into a fervour over adequately protecting the Ulster people. Not long ago a Conservative Front-Bench spokesman grabbed the Mace and waved it at Left-Wing Members because the Government had got through a Division and the Left-Wing was singing the Red Flag. I should like to see more fervour demonstrated in this House on behalf of the Ulster people who even today, and this very night, are under threat of death from the Provisional IRA.
As a result of the strike, the Secretary of State made certain promises about security to the Ballylumfort power workers, and subsequently to politicians who saw him, including myself. It is strange that some of the politicians should have expressed satisfaction with the proposals which, in my view, are too little and too late.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the increased numbers of the UDR and the police, and mentioned taking certain other steps. But why were those measures not taken years ago, because the situation remains the same? I was astounded to hear Unionist politicians emerge from talks with the Secretary of State saying that they were pleased to hear that the shortage of radio and other equipment for the police, including proper firearms, was to be made good by November. By November many other Ulster people will be dead. Surely the measures which are being taken now should have been taken years ago, and no further delay should be tolerated. It is not satisfactory to the Ulster people that this House should go into recess for a fortnight and that no proper measures will have been announced by the Government and no determination shown by them to take steps to rid the country of the IRA.
Last week the IRA spearheaded an attack on the Protestant population of the Duncairn area in Belfast in order to drive them out of the area and to take it over—as they did in New Barnsley, Ormeau Road and along the border and


elsewhere. What was the response of the Secretary of State, who has shown such determination and strength during the strike? It was negative. Where were the masses of security forces who were displayed in that strike? Why were they not in evidence to end the intimidation of women and children who were being intimidated in order to drive them out of their homes? Seemingly, the Protestant people must suffer in silence, as must the Roman Catholics—and this should be made clear, too—who live in areas dominated by the IRA, and controlled by fear. Those people, whether they be Protestant or Roman Catholics, want the Government to take the strongest measures against the IRA terrorists in Northern Ireland because they want to see peace restored to that country.
Northern Ireland has suffered 1,750 dead and 75,000 injured. This in terms of the population of Great Britain amounts to 70,000 dead and 120,000 injured. If only a tiny fraction of that number died or were injured in Great Britain, there would be an outcry in this House. Neither the Government nor this Parliament can shrug off responsibility to the Ulster people and talk of political solutions to end the violence. The gunmen in Northern Ireland have been defeated in election after election, and they are not interested in democracy or elections or a political solution. They are interested only in the creation of an Irish Marxist Republic—a republic governed by fear.
The fifty years of the Stormont Government, with all its faults—and every Government I have seen in this country and elsewhere have had their faults—were years of relative peace and steady progress. But the years of direct rule have been disastrous for peace and good government. Until the campaign of terrorism started in Northern Ireland, that Province probably had the best behaved and disciplined population of the United Kingdom with only 3,000 policemen—the smallest number of police per head of the population in the whole of the United Kingdom. Now, with 11,000 police, the Province has become ungovernable because of the criminal laxity of Government policy.
Before this House decides to adjourn for a two-week recess, the people of Northern Ireland—some of whom will

be murdered or mutilated or have their homes or their businesses destroyed in those two weeks—are entitled to have some concrete evidence from the Government that, at long last, they intend to give maximum protection to the people, maximum power to crush the IRA, and maximum power to the courts. The terrorists in the IRA should be put behind bars so that they cannot endanger the decent, ordinary citizens of Northern Ireland.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Paul Channon: I hope that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) will forgive me if I do not take up his theme on Northern Ireland—except to say that hon. Members who represent constituencies in all parts of the United Kingdom have the deepest sympathy for the people whom he and others represent in this House in the appalling experiences they have had to undergo in Northern Ireland in the last few years. Perhaps we cannot share the passion of the hon. Gentleman in putting forward his case, but that does not detract from the fact that we have the greatest concern for the suffering which has taken place in Northern Ireland in the past few years. I share with him the wish that one day that suffering may end. I hope that the Government will be able to give him satisfactory assurances.
I wish to return to some remarks made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle). I believe that the House should not adjourn until we have some clear answers on the subject of direct elections to the European Parliament. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to put certain matters to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. I know that he is a splendid House of Commons man, that he will try to be as clear in his answers as he usually is, and that he will not take refuge in obscurity.
We were told by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon that when the House returns after the recess we shall be afforded some mysterious communication. We eagerly look forward to that communication, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm several matters relating to it? In what form are we to expect that communication? Does it mean that the Government are still bound by their two earlier commitments to the House—namely, that they will use their


best endeavours to get through a Bill on direct elections in time for them to be held in the summer of next year? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is still the Government's position?
Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is still the Government's intention that this House should be genuinely afforded the opportunity of a free vote on the system of elections to be held at that time, if there are to be direct elections at all? Will he confirm that, whatever communication comes from the Government, that second condition will continue to be met? I am sure he would agree that it would be a great breach of faith by him if, in fulfilling the undertaking that we should have a free vote the Government were so to arrange matters that the House would not be offered a genuinely free vote. In other words, I hope that the arrangements will not be so made that there will be no opportunity for one or other system to be genuinely decided by the House, and I hope we shall not be told that by then it will be too late for one or other system to be used.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if that were to be the case, the House would not have a free vote? It would face the country with a totally different situation, and that would be a breach of numerous undertakings given by Ministers to the House.
This matter has had far too long a history. The House should decide it, one way or the other, in the near future. During the last few years we have had repeated debates and White Papers, and there was as recently as last month a two-day debate. Yet we still await the Bill.
Suspicion grows daily here and elsewhere that there is double dealing about whether we shall have direct elections at all. I ask the Leader of the House to dispel suspicions that the Government are somehow manoeuvring the House into a position where there will not be a genuinely free vote on the system of elections to the European Assembly—if there are to be any elections at all.
I was not here when the Leader of the House discussed the merits and demerits of proportional representation in any

future Scottish Assembly, but I read his fascinating speech with great interest. I agreed with much of what he said, and many other hon. Members also agreed with him—indeed that was reflected in the Division on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman might also find that a similarly large number of hon. Members agree with what I suspect are his views on the merits of proportional representation for the European Assembly. However, we must be allowed to have a fair method of expressing that view. The Government must allow time for debate and the House must be allowed to vote genuinely.
In conclusion, I ask the Leader of the House to impress upon his colleagues the suggestion that was put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) during an earlier debate—that if the House were to give Second Reading to a Bill to hold direct elections, the House could then be given an opportunity of expressing its views on the system of direct elections. The House could subsequently continue its discussions on such a Bill—if it wanted it—having decided what the system of election should be. We should not be cheated of such fair opportunities.
I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to lift the curtain of suspicion about what is proposed on this matter. Not only tonight, but when we return after the Whitsun Recess, the Government should be fair in their dealings with our partners in Europe and with all parts of the House in the matter of direct elections so that—whatever conclusion may be reached at the end of the day—we shall have had a fair opportunity to put our case and for the system of election to be decided democratically in time for it to be introduced.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not dissent from the motion that the House should adjourn until 13th June, but before the House rises I should like to take this opportunity to highlight a matter of the utmost importance. It is the intrusion of the EEC into domestic British policy-making and the readiness of the Commission to take legal proceedings against this country—as it has done on at least two occasions this year.
One could quote a number of examples from different sectors of British industry, but the one that I wish to highlight


tonight is the situation that now faces the oil platform construction industry and the possible effect on the Labour Government's North Sea oil policy of the solutions that have been unofficially proposed by the EEC to solve the present difficulty about the subsidy that we pay to that industry.
The present aid amounts to interest rate rebates on 3 per cent. of buyers' credit for up to 80 per cent. of the value of major orders placed within Scotland. The Commission did not object to that in 1973 when the aid was introduced but now, due to the decline in the construction industry throughout the rest of the EEC, it has begun to object. The Commission began under the Treaty of Rome to take legal proceedings against this country earlier in the year.
The Commission's request must be refused if we are to project jobs in this country. I am worried—even more than I am worried about the Commission's decision to take this country to court—about a rumour that began to emerge in London after the visit here of Commissioner Vovel. He is the Commissioner responsible for co-ordinating energy policy throughout the EEC. The rumour was that the Commission might be prepared to overlook the Government aid that is being given to the oil platform construction industry if this country was prepared to allow crude oil produced in the North Sea to be refined in Germany and other EEC countries.
I do not need to remind the Leader of the House that this is the kind of trade-off between policies that we in the Labour Party—and I hope the Labour Government—cannot condone or accept. If the rumour is correct—and I have grounds for believing that it is—in no circumstances should such a trade-off be accepted. I also have no need to remind the Leader of the House or other hon. and right hon. Members that, during the referendum campaign, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), who was then Secretary of State for Energy and who is now Secretary of State for Industry, said that that was the very sort of deal that the EEC would require Britain to make—a deal that would require crude oil produced in the North sea to be refined in other EEC countries.
It is not without some significance that we were discussing in the House last week Commission papers relating to energy policy in the EEC and that one of the recommendations put forward by the Commission was a reduction of 15 per cent. in the crude refining capacity throughout EEC countries. One point of that must be to ensure that there is an increase in the refining capacities of some individual countries in the EEC. This country might need additional refining capacity to meet production from the North Sea, and yet it would not be able to go ahead with increasing its capacity without permission from the Commission. The Government must continue to refuse and to oppose such policies.
I again refer to the Secretary of State for Industry because, when he was Secretary of State for Energy, he said that it was Government policy—and I believe it still is—that upwards of 60 per cent. of the total crude oil produced in the North Sea should be refined in this country. We must maintain that as a minimum. In the interests of national energy policy, and as a matter or urgency. I should like to see that figure substantially in excess of 60 per cent. Under no circumstances should we accept the bully boys from the Commission in Brussels coming to individual Ministers and the British Government saying, "We are prepared to overlook your subsidy to the oil construction industry in Scotland if you will let us have some oil to keep the refining capacity going in Germany and Holland".
This Government and the Labour Government that we shall have after the next election must ensure that this country gets the full benefit of North Sea oil production. I ask the Leader of the House to urge the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement to the House in the first week after the recess on the issues that I have raised.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: As a regular attender at these Adjournment debates, I have never heard a more surprising speech than that delivered by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) who has only recently joined the Back Benches. He


comes to them with a considerable reputation, and has certainly neither surprised or disappointed those of us who have listened to him—and hon. Members can take that in any way they like.
The right hon. Gentleman commented on the Daily Mail and its inexcusable behaviour in the last few days. There has been widespread disquiet and there will be a wide measure of agreement on what he implied about a free Press in a democracy having to exercise some form of self-discipline. Otherwise, the whole system of democracy will be brought into disrepute.
I should like to raise three matters as briefly as I can. The first is the position of pharmacists. The Leader of the House may not be aware that many are exceedingly angry and are threatening to withdraw their services unless the Government amend a regulation included in a letter sent to the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee by the Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health and Social Security, Sir Patrick Nairne.
The pharmacists are threatened with a reduction in their net profit margins from prescriptions, and at a time of severe inflation it is hardly surprising that they take it very badly. The public will suffer if pharmacists carry their anger to the point of withdrawing services, and if that happens the public will suffer as a result of the letter sent by Sir Patrick Nairne, presumably on the instructions and advice of the Secretary of State.
I shall be grateful if the Leader of the House will see what can be done to alleviate the disaffection felt by pharmacists. I have had many letters from my constituency on this subject.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware of the problems being faced by pharmacists because their monthly cheques are arriving several days late? As a result, they are having to bear costs of several hundreds or thousands of pounds, which they can ill afford with their profit margin of 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. on turnover.

Mr. Adley: I was aware of that, but I was seeking to be brief. If the Secretary of State was not aware of this, my hon. Friend has highlighted the problems being faced by this specialised

and very valuable section of the community.
The second matter that I wish to discuss is the renegotiation of the Bermuda Agreement generally and the continuing uncertainty over Concorde's landing rights at Kennedy Airport in New York. The behaviour of Mr. Brock Adams in the last few days has been extraordinary and unbecoming for an American Secretary of State for Transportation. I should like an assurance from the Leader of the House that the Government, who have been renegotiating the agreement, will not allow themselves to be bullied into renegotiating it without including in it a re-confirmation of Concorde's landing rights at Kennedy Airport.
I understand that the Americans' negotiating position is to maintain the status quo as much as possible, and that must mean maintaining the existing treaty landing rights for Concorde at Kennedy Airport. Many hon. Members have watched with concern the way in which President Carter has managed to take apparently no responsibility for a decision that was signed by and is presumably due to be upheld by the Federal Government of the United States of America.
The last point that I wish to raise concerns the unsatisfactory position of this Parliament and the Government as a result of the Lib-Lab pact. The Chairman of the Christchurch and Lymington Liberal Association recently eulogised the pact in a letter to the Lymington Times. He then stood for election and, not surprisingly, was roundly defeated. He has now taken violent exception to being described as a "Lib-Lab", to the point of threatening to take up a case for defamation unless he receives a full apology from the local Conservative Party.
I see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee) is laughing. I admit that on this occasion it is difficult, when puting one's tongue in one's cheek, not to stick it through the side of one's mouth. Where do the Government stand on the question of the pact? The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) has just been referring to trade-offs. I can think of no better way of describing the arrangement between the Liberal and Labour Parties in Parliament. For the Liberals,


the sequel to the "Twelve Just Men" must be the "Thirteen Sordid Politicians", whose sole interest is in saving their own skins and avoiding the electorate.
I understand that many of those who share the political views of the Leader of the House feel that the Labour Party has no mandate to do a trade-off with the Liberals if it means trading off any of the principles of the Labour Party. The other side of the coin, for the Liberals, is that the wish of their 13 Members to remain in the House has resulted in their taking a position that is in flagrant violation of the wishes of a very large number of those who voted Liberal at the last General Election. This has been highlighted by the massive reduction in the Liberal vote at recent elections.
I hope that the Leader of the House will have a word or two to say about political parties in general, and Governments in particular, that seem prepared to clasp to their bosom the votes and views of anyone in the House in order to avoid an election, especially when it is clear from recent parliamentary by-election results that the people of this country who voted a minority Government into office have had enough after three years and want another election so that they can get rid of them. What the Government are doing is politically dishonest. It is clear that they and the Liberals are denying the people the choice of a new Government at a General Election.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. John Lee: I wish to raise two dissimilar matters that should delay the Adjournment of the House until they are answered by the Leader of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) have raised, in different ways, the conduct of Associated Newspapers in general and Vere Harmsworth in particular. In general I endorse all that they have said, but I wish to raise a disturbing aspect about the conduct of the BBC in having permitted an ex-President of the United States to engage in a series of what are, no doubt, lucrative exercises in television.
I have raised with the Chairman of the BBC and the Home Secretary the question of the undesirability of allowing people of notorious character, and especially a person who is a criminal by international standards, the facilities of public broadcasting. The Home Secretary replied, in the correct constitutional way, that he does not have the power, except in very dire circumstances, to interfere in the internal running of BBC affairs. This has been the policy of successive Governments and any departure from it would not be easily countenanced by many hon. Members.
When debates on public standards have arisen—notably this matter was canvassed extensively in 1963 at the time of the Profumo affair—Members in both Houses deprecated cheque-book journalism, whereby persons of criminal or notorious character used their notoriety to derive financial benefit from it. The Chairman of the BBC, in answer to my queries, sought, rather disingenuously, I thought, to establish that Mr. Nixon was not an ordinary kind of criminal—which may well be true. Indeed, he is not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine):: The hon. Gentleman should relate his remarks to the responsibility of a Minister.

Mr. Lee: I made my remarks in this sense: I wish my right hon. Friend to tell us whether Government policy is to wash their hands entirely of the kind of behaviour that the BBC, which is constiuted under charter and under the provisions of the Post Office legislation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that the Minister is not responsible for BBC policy.

Mr. Lee: I do not want to enter into an argument with the Chair. However, I understand that the Home Secretary answers questions on broadcasting matters in this House. To that extent he must have some overall, if only residual responsibility. Rather than enter into an argument that may bring me into conflict with the Chair—as I maintain that the only authority I shall not allow myself to get into conflict with is the Chair—I shall leave the matter alone. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend will ingeniously find a way of commenting


on what some of us regard as a public scandal.
There have been far too many examples of corruption in public life, such as the Poulson affair and the series of local government corruption trials over the past few years. Many of us have felt disturbed about some aspects of public life. It is scandalous that the arch criminal of the Western world should be given the kind of publicity he seems to be obtaining. I cannot believe that Lord Reith—one of the founders of the BBC—would ever have tolerated that.
I turn to another matter that is within the competence of the Government. I have raised it on previous occasions in concert with the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine). I refer to the future of the Ocean Islanders, the Banabans. A rumour is current that a statement may be forthcoming.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): There will be a statement on this matter tomorrow. I hope that my hon. Friend will put his question then.

Mr. Lee: It had better be a good statement. I give my right hon. Friend fair warning of what will happen if it is not. When I say a good statement, I mean a statement that will do justice to a people who have suffered grievous injustices at the hands of successive Governments for 75 years. Let me say what a number of hon. Members and I specifically require. We wish the matter to be discussed. We shall take advantage of the situation provided by the Gilbert Islands independence Bill if that statement is not satisfactory. I give my right hon. Friend fair warning that unless provision is made to enable the people of Ocean Island to choose, if they so wish—as I believe is the case—to affiliate with Fiji and to have their island hived off from the Gilberts, some of us will hold up the Gilbert Islands independence Bill when it comes before the House. As, by constitutional usage, all measures of that kind must be taken on the Floor of the House, it does not need much imagination to understand the warning. It does not take more than a handful of hon. Members to gum up the Government's work.
The next matter has been raised by a number of Euro-fanatics. After the

recess a statement may be made about European elections. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) may rest assured that we shall discuss—and go on and on discussing—every conceivable form of proportional representation. I believe that there are 67 different forms of proportional representation. I am sure that there will be enough hon. Members who will put down amendments—I see that the hon. Member for Holland With Boston (Mr. Body) will assist us—to enable us to keep the subject going for a long time. The House can rest assured that hon. Members had better enjoy the recess, because if the motion is passed a great deal of work will have to be done when we return. Many of us will keep the subject going for a long time.
I give my right hon. Friend fair warning on the matter of the Ocean Islanders. He will find his timetable in as much of a mess as it was over the Scotland and Wales Bill in the earlier part of this year.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I apologise for not having been present at the beginning of the debate, as the result of an unbreakable commitment outside the Chamber.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr. Channon) on the subject of direct elections. I hope that the Leader of the House will, as usual, pay diligent attention to what I say about the vital subject of direct elections. I am grateful to him. Although I know that he may have heard this before, I hope that he will not use that fact as an excuse for not listening again. It is supremely important for the Government to consider far more solemnly than they appear to have done so far—I refer to the Lord President and, regrettably the Prime Minister—the whole matter of direct elections.
It was unacceptable and inadequate that the Leader of the House during business questions today promised some kind only of metaphysical communication on 13th or 14th June when the House resumes. It is still within the power of the Leader of the House, even at this late hour—this is why I suggest that the


Government should not propose the adjournment of the House yet—to say more than "I undertake to give the House a communication in mid-June". It would be within his power to give much more guidance now, even if of a provisional and understandably tentative nature, on the kinds of proposals that the Government intend to bring forward at the date of the introduction of the Bill.
It is appalling that the Leader of the House, who has a reputation as champion of Parliament, its procedures and the robust nature of the House of Commons, should have allowed this matter to slide back to a degree that makes us look foolish to the other member States in Europe.
That is not our principal reason for raising the objections to the Government's tardy behaviour on this occasion. Hon. Members may be concerned about the Banabans, but in view of its relative importance, the question of direct elections should command the primary attention of the Government before the recess.
A week ago the French Cabinet proposed the outline of its Bill. Other Bills will be introduced later on by some other member States. The French Bill will take only a few weeks to pass through the French National Assembly. The other member States, which have apparently less of a smooth parliamentary tradition than we have, have already introduced Bills. I exclude Belgium, where there are problems facing the two ethnic communities. These proposals have already been published, at least in draft form, in European countries, including Germany. Italy is further ahead than many of the other member States.
However, no proposals have been made by the Government embodying the promise and commitment contained in the Queen's Speech, and which have been reiterated, at least by way of hints, earlier this year. Although it was not firmly spelled out as a commitment in verbal terms, the idea was presented that the proposals would come much sooner. Last year the Select Committee proposed to fix the end of February, under one set of structural proposals, for the direct elections as being the right kind of time limit. Therefore, the Bill had plenty of time. We are miles ahead of that. There are still no legislative proposals.
Therefore, the suspicion is more than just lingering—it is fundamental—that the Government are indulging in curious and unjustified Machiavellian behaviour, with only the Leader of the House knowing, perhaps, what kind of final objective is in view. Is the idea to sabotage the whole thing, to produce a shaky agreement with the Liberals, so that, at a late stage, some sketchy Bill can be produced proposing one system? The Leader of the House has a solemn duty not to ignore this subject because of difficulties in the Cabinet and the Labour Party's National Executive.
Before we go into recess, he should accept his duty and give us at least provisional guidance about what he thinks his communication will contain in mid-June. We should not adjourn till we have that explanation.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The Leader of the House has been exhorted to do a number of things that are so incredible and unlikely, bearing in mind his party, his ideology and his powers, that I am glad to be able to raise an issue with no party political implications, which is not restrictive of his ideology and powers and to which I know his beneficent and generous nature will make him only too ready to respond.
I wish to speak about the citizens' advice bureaux, and specifically to request that before the House rises for a recess that we badly need the Government should undertake to do something to help to prevent these organisations from going out of business.
If citizens' advice bureaux were of doubtful value, if they were about to disappear because there was no legislation for their counsellors to explain, or because everyone was so affluent that he could afford a solicitor, or because we Members of Parliament were so well paid for our offices that we could afford to keep a fully efficient organisation to do their work, it might not be a bad thing to let them go.
Unfortunately, there never was a time when these bureaux were more necessary or were doing such excellent and beneficial work—I give particular credit to the bureau in Burton-on-Trent, but I am sure that the same is true of all the others—mostly for people from the very


sections of society most desperately in need of help and advice.
Last year, the bureaux answered well over 2½ million inquiries—approximately double the number they used to answer 10 years ago. That means that one in 16 of our population over the age of 14 had a query answered by letter, phone or personal interview—at a cost of about 60p per inquiry. There never has been such a massive outpouring of legislation on social security, employment, race relations and women's rights, or such an increase in the amount of divorce, or such complex outpourings from district and county councils. From all sorts of sources those myriads of rules and regulations desperately need to be explained to confused people. There never has been so much confusion or lack of comprehension in our society about what is being ordained by governing bodies to those who are governed.
The work of the bureaux is well worth the small cost. Camden Council reckoned that last year the voluntary workers in the bureaux in that borough saved them £25,000. I hope that the Lord President is leaving the Chamber because he is already convinced by the strength of the argument and for no reason of discomfort.
The need for the 670 or so bureaux is beyond doubt, but whether they will continue to exist in the present financial climate is very much in doubt. There is an expected deficit of £20,000 next year in the finances of bureaux in the West Midlands alone, which takes no account of what is expected to be the inevitable growth in their use, of about 6 per cent.
Since the burden of financing these bureaux fall on local authorities, which will have to make rigorous cuts in their expenditure this year as a result of Government policy, there is a real danger that they will be extremely vulnerable. Some are threatened with closure at the moment. I therefore ask the Government to consider, in the current climate, the need to promise reasonable central Government aid for the bureaux.
Although no one feels more strongly than I about the need for curtailment of Government spending, there is room for a substantial reordering of priorities. I hope in the next debate to be able to

suggest how £20 million or £30 million may be saved. No one feels more strongly than I about the need for local control in financing local activities, but the citizens' advice bureaux are now an arm far more of central than local government. Over 50 per cent. of their cases deal with purely central Government matters. Bureaux act as distribution centres—probably the most efficient ones—for Government leaflets and literature. And it is in the general public interest that they should continue to advise, inform, mediate for and represent people in trouble.
I ask for an undertaking that the Government will open discussions with the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux to see how Government aid might sustain them when the chop comes from local authorities and when the very existence is threatened of the most under-praised and unassuming of our national social services, providing its services free through the generous sacrifice of time and effort by thousands of public-spirited voluntary workers. I hope that this plea will not fall upon deaf ears.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I want to return to the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) during business questions today, when he asked for a full-scale debate on immigration. The Leader of the House said that he thought that that was a suitable subject for a Supply Day, but that answer is not good enough. The last time that we had a full-scale debate on the issue was 5th July 1976—almost a year ago.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is tremendous public concern on this issue. Many people feel that politicians are totally out of touch and have no conception of the problems faced by some areas. The Government are far too complacent. They want to maintain a wall of silence, possibly in the hope that if the problem is swept under the carpet it will disappear. It will not. Far from disappearing, the problem is getting worse and tension is growing.
There has been a change in attitude in the House. At one time, anyone who dared to mention this subject was immediately branded a racialist, but we have recently seen a disturbing growth in


support for the National Front, whose policies are very dangerous. I am concerned that, in the last GLC elections, almost 120,000 people voted for National Front candidates. The National Front has played on the fears and anxieties of many people. Many who voted for the National Front are not racialist, but simply wanted to show their discontent with the immigration policies of successive Governments. As long as people are unsure whether the Government have the will to tackle this problem organisations such as the National Front will continue to grow in strength.
I do not think that the position has been helped by the statement by Mr. Praful Patel, who demanded censorship of the official population figures on the grounds that when stories appeared about a baby boom in Britain, especially a coloured baby boom, they played into the hands of those whom he called "Those racist people." It does not help the cause of good race relations and it does not do much good to the cause of the immigrants.
It is necessary for this Government, or, if this Government will not do it, the next Conservative Government, to give the British people the prospect of an end to immigration. I believe that this is necessary for the immigrants who are already here and for the indigenous population.
I do not think it is any good for the Lord President to repeat what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West earlier today, that this should be a subject for a Supply Day. It is wrong that we should leave for the Spring Recess before this vital subject is fully aired. Since the collapse of the Government's Bill on devolution, I would have thought that the Leader of the House had to spend a great deal of time looking for subjects to debate. It is disgraceful that we have not had a full-scale debate on this very important issue for almost a year. Therefore, I ask the Lord President to make sure that the subject is ventilated before the House adjourns for the recess.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Montgomery) that the worst way to treat the subject of immigration is to pretend that it is not a problem and in that way create even greater anxiety

among people not only in the urban areas but in rural areas, where I regret the anxiety is increasingly felt.
I wish to ask the Leader of the House about another matter. The right hon. Gentleman's record on Early-Day Motions is not very good. I believe I am right in saying that since he has been Leader of the House not one Early-Day Motion has had time allocated for debate in the House. One motion that should be discussed by the House, which was referred to earlier today by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), is Early-Day Motion No. 236, on the subject of the proposed new passport, which is to have the words "European Community" emblazoned across it. I thought that the Leader of the House said this afternoon that he had referred to this matter on 4th May, but I could not find it when I looked up the Hansard for that day. It was a Wednesday, so I do not think that it could have been 4th May. I also looked at Hansard for 5th May, but I could still find no trace of a statement.
As far as I know, the right hon. Gentleman has not given an undertaking that the House should reach a decision on this subject. I realise that it is essentially a question of the Royal Prerogative, but surely the House has the right to express an affirmative opinion, to say "Yea" or "Nay" whether it is in favour of such a passport. I accept that it might not be the final decision and that the decision should rest with the Royal Prerogative. However, it is wholly wrong that the House should be barred from voting on this subject.
I hope that the Leader of the House will give an assurance that we shall have not only an opportunity of discussing this subject but a chance of voting on it. The reason why I urge a vote is that it is time we flushed out those of our colleagues who are European federalists at heart, who yearn for a super-State, and who would cherish European citizenship. It is time that we knew their identity.
The Leader of the House has promised us a communication on direct elections as soon as we come back after the recess. I have no doubt that he will spend some hours during the recess considering what that communication should be. I ask him to spend some time ascertaining how far other States have gone. My hon.


Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) seemed to be very anxious about this. I do not see why any of our hon. Friends who are so enthusiastic about a federal Europe should feel anxious. Is not the Leader of the House aware that he has arranged for the House to give more parliamentary time to direct elections than any of the other eight Parliaments of the Community? We are ahead of them in discussing the principles of this subject. Am I not right in saying that only four of the other eight countries have got as far as publishing a Bill? It may be that one or two more have made some progress recently.

Sir Anthony Royle: Surely it is not a question of time. It is a question of the Government's taking a decision. They failed to take a decision to introduce the Bill.

Mr. Body: A decision was made, surely, to use "our best endeavours". That decision was announced in the Queen's Speech at the beginning of the parliamentary year, and a decision has been made to introduce legislation. I am saying that the Government are in the vanguard in the march towards direct elections. They have made more progress so far than any other Government in the Community. Perhaps the Leader of the House will do a little homework in the recess and say whether I am right or wrong about this when he makes his announcement.
The other matter that the House should discuss immediately is that of the fishing industry, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). It is high time the Government gave at least one day of their own time to debating the future of our fishing industry. I do not think that the Government realise the gloom that now pervades the fishing industry. Our fishermen see that their competitors in Norway and Iceland have secured their own 200-mile limit, and they know that those countries can now pursue their own independent conservation policies to make sure that there will continue to be fishing industries in Norway and Iceland in years to come.
Our own fishing industry cannot do that. Our fishermen have been told that there will be no chance of any

national 200-mile limit. At one point we sought a 50-mile limit, but this was rejected by the European Community and we now have only a 12-mile limit over which we can claim some sovereignty, and that will go in 1982. That may seem rather distant, but it is not if one is planning the future of a business in the fishing industry or seeking to invest in new ships, which are more expensive than ever.
I represent a constituency that has a number of fishing firms. Even for inshore fishermen the very high standards required for vessels will mean the investment of many thousands of pounds before these boats can be launched. It is right that that should be so, but those in the fishing industry do not dare to commit themselves to such high expenditure in the present state of uncertainty about the future of our fishing industry and the uncertainty about the extent to which we shall have any control over the conservation of fish in our own waters.
1 hope that the Leader of the House will find time, as soon as we return after the recess, to debate properly and sensibly the future of the fishing industry so that all hon. Members who have fishing interests—and there are many—will have an opportunity to express their fears about the industry.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: Since the debate began a couple of hours ago with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) raising the very important matter of the 50-mile fishing limit and the problems facing the British fishing industry, which were touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), we have had the usual hors d'oeuvre of a debate on the Adjournment motion. Some dishes have been more significant and interesting than others.
The most disappointing contribution was the speech of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). I am bound to say that it was an extraordinarily trivial contribution. The right hon. Gentleman had something on his mind and he expressed his views to the House, but I felt that his speech was unworthy of the office that he held. If not unworthy of himself, it was unworthy of the position that he now holds in this place as


an ex-Prime Minister. I regret that. His remarks had no more connection with ministerial responsibility than the issues raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee), or with the newspaper problems raised by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), who seemed to be concerned about Beaverbrook Newspapers and the Evening Standard. As far as I could divine, his positive suggestions were a combination of re-appointing the Lord President as editor and the expenditure of public money.
Out of this hors d'oeuvre I have no doubt that the most important single issue is that of the Bill for elections to the European Parliament, which was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle), South-end, West (Mr. Channon) and Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I shall not cover the issues that they raised and the points that were made at Question Time.
I must tell the Lord President that the Opposition feel that the way that the Government have used their endeavours to get the Bill through Parliament has not been in any sense genuine. We feel that they have been positively misleading. At the time of the Queen's Speech, it was quite fair to say that they would use their best endeavours, but earlier in the year, when there suddenly appeared more space than originally expected in the parliamentary programme, it soon became clear that there was no such Bill standing in the wings ready to be introduced. As far as we know, no such Bill exists today, except, perhaps, in draft form. The Government have been extremely misleading. Once time emerged in the parliamentary programme to enable the Government to make progress with a Bill, they could not claim to be using their best endeavours if they did not produce one.
In the meantime, the issue has become further confused by the arrangement that has been established between the Government and the Liberal Party. There is a conflict of interests in respect of the Bill between the Government and, if they can be so termed, their new-found friends. This has added to the muddle. If the Government were genuine in using their best endeavours, whatever their own difficulties with their own party and however strong anti-Market feeling may be in

some parts of it and in a very small part of my party, which I accept still exists, surely it was the Government's clear duty not only to produce a Bill but to produce one in such a form as to give the House of Commons a reasonable chance of coming to a reasonable conclusion and to make progress with it. We consider it to be an extremely serious matter that the Government have not produced such a Bill.
We are all conscious of what seems to be almost the encouragement of the anti-Market views that are being expressed on the Labour Benches. Certainly the mishandling, as I call it, of the Bill gives encouragement to the anti-Marketeers. It is clear that in no circumstances can we have a direct elections Bill passed through the House this Session. That is not a possibility. An attempt will have to be made next Session. Perhaps there will not be a next Session with this Government. If they remain in office, perhaps the next Session will not last very long, in which case the matter will have to be handled after the General Election. However, in no sense is the delay in bringing forward the Bill of benefit to the country or to any individual in it.
There was a great feeling of resentment about the word that the Lord President seemed to enjoy using, namely "communication". Was it a suggestion that some message might come down from another place to indicate that a particular view has been taken on a certain matter? It is a word that has a particular connotation in the House. My right hon. and hon. Friends hope very much that the Leader of the House will give a more specific indication of precisely what he means.
The main issue that remains is that in our view the right hon. Gentleman has let down not only his own party but the House and the whole country by not being genuine when his Government said that they would use their best endeavours. Indeed, the Prime Minister said today at Question Time that after the referendum the Government accepted the result. If they accepted it genuinely, they would have made progress with the Bill. As I have said, we feel very strongly on this issue.
A range of important but singularly less significant matters have been raised. The case of the individual raised by my


hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) was most important. It is an example of an individual who is suffering as a direct result of the Government's legislation. There is wide interest in the matter. It is by no means the only such case. It is one that happens to have been raised by my hon. Friend, but there are many others. It is extremely serious when an individual who holds strong views—he is surely entitled to do so—should be seriously disadvantaged as a result of legislation passed by the Government.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) spoke of Northern Ireland and the inordinate delay in establishing a Speakers' Conference to deal with the representation of the people of Northern Ireland. I am certain that there are a great many extremely important matters to which a Speakers' Conference could attend with advantage to the Government of the United Kingdom as a whole, but the hon. Gentleman raised a specific matter that must be considered.
As I have said before, it appears that the Government have no policy on Northern Ireland. We do not know in which direction they are trying to lead the Province. There is an enormous gap in the Government's general strategy.
No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will reply to the many other issues that have been raised—for example, the reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) to citizens' advice bureaux and topics such as immigration.
I raise one other matter, namely, phase 3 and the issues that arise from it. There is an enormous amount of uncertainty about phase 3. For months it was heralded by the Government as a vital part of their economic strategy and incomes policy, but in recent weeks we have heard Ministers using phrases that indicate that they are getting weaker and weaker on it all the time.
For example, some weeks ago we heard that the Chancellor wanted a single-figure settlement—in other words, less than 10 per cent. No such figure has been used recently. Instead of a firm agreement we have words such as "understanding" and "arrangement", which suggests that it will be a weak arrangement and not what the Government would like to have. The

uncertainty created by that atmosphere is something that can be cleared up when the right hon. Gentleman replies.
A report has emerged recently on the remuneration of doctors and dentists. It raises a number of problems. In the second paragraph it states that this extremely important professional body has had its standard of living reduced by about 20 per cent., which is a very great reduction. Members of the profession are feeling extremely frustrated and angry, as are many other people throughout the country. It is not an exclusive feeling, it is one that is shared by those who are employed in factories, for example. We know what the strike at London Airport was about and we know the circumstances of the toolworkers' strike at British Leyland. This is another example of the same sort of thing. The review body regards the matter as being so serious that it views the profession's future with some misgiving.
The review body, in paragraph 3, states:
We also see very real difficulties in the way of continuing to function as an independent Review Body unless it again becomes possible for us to have full regard to the principles behind the aims so clearly expressed by the Royal Commission on Doctors' and Dentists Remuneration.
In other words, it is not just the professional people whom this body is there to help who are worsted by what has happened. We have reached the position, in this extremely important profession, where the people who are trying to advise the Government on a fair and reasonable range find themselves in an unacceptable position. So much so, they have grave doubts whether they can continue at all.
That is the kind of mess and muddle into which this Government are getting the country. Every time we have these debates—there cannot be many more before the next election—the situation gets worse. Since the Easter Adjournment motion, the Government have lost Stechford and Ashfield. They were lucky not to lose Grimsby. At any rate, their majority has gone and the extent of their minority is increasing.
Many of us feel that the Government's authority to govern has gone. So long as they can command a majority in this House they have a certain authority to


govern, but, looked at in the round, looked at from any outside point of view, their genuine authority to govern and their legitimacy seems no longer to be real. By far the best thing that they could do would be to allow the country to have a General Election so that people who are longing to vote and to express their view can do so. I think that we can genuinely say that they are longing to vote, because the poll at the local government elections was certainly a great deal higher than usual.
We can understand the Government struggling along to try to keep themselves in power. I suspect that they will do so at the price of losing by an even wider margin at the end of the day. That would not be so significant, but for the fact that in the meantime, by the absence of authority and the steps that they are having to take to survive, they are damaging the true interests of this country and in no sense benefiting any family in this land. For those reasons, the sooner they go, the better.
I do not suggest that the House should vote against the recess motion. However, that in no way alters the fact that the state to which the country has been reduced is causing the utmost dismay to the Opposition. The Lord President has a great deal more to answer for today than he had before Easter.

7.3 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I shall seek to answer the more general questions posed by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) later in my remarks. I think that I should begin by commenting on some of the other speeches which have been made.
I start with the speech made by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) not only because he fully recognised that the Government had set the pace on the question of direct elections—a point not noted by all his hon. Friends—but because he gives me the opportunity of correcting a date which I gave in reply to a business question today. I referred to a reply of mine on 4th May. I apologise for the fact that the hon. Gentleman should have had all the trouble of looking up an utterance of mine which was not made on that particular

date. My reference was to a statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 4th May, but he was reiterating what I had said on other occasions on the question of the passport—the matter raised earlier today by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).
My hon. Friend, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Arnold), announced:
There are two main features of the design still to be agreed in Brussels. They concern the layout of the cover and the languages to be used inside the passport. In addition, there are other matters of detail to be discussed with our Community partners. … We are agreed that the House should have an opportunity to discuss the subject…my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary … accepts that it is proper that the House should be given an opportunity to debate the matter before the Government are finally committed on the issues under discussion in Brussels."—[Official Report, 4th May 1977; Vol. 931, c. 447.]
Of course, there should be a debate in this House on the matter. I hope that meets the point made by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston and the point made during business questions by the hon. Member for Banbury.

Mr. Body: I asked whether we might have a vote rather than a debate on the matter.

Mr. Foot: I understand the desire of the House to have a debate on the matter. The hon. Gentleman knows that at various intervals questions arise whether votes on European matters should take place. I acknowledge that there will have to be some arrangement whereby a vote can take place as well.

Mr. Channon: The right hon. Gentleman has, in effect, quoted an answer given by one of his hon. Friends. Will he confirm what his hon. Friend said in reply on that specific occasion—namely, that the Government were committed in principle to the introduction of such a passport although a lot of practical details had to be finalised?

Mr. Foot: I am not going back on what was said by the Minister of State on that occasion. The Foreign Secretary gave an undertaking, and I also gave an undertaking on an earlier occasion, that the matter would have to be settled by


the House. It is on that basis that it will have to be brought forward again.
The hon. Member for Holland with Boston also referred to fisheries and asked for a general debate on the subject. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) began the debate with a reference to fisheries questions, indeed, he put a specific point about the Irish fish conservation measures. I understand that the European Court gave an interim decision last Saturday to the effect that the Irish could carry on with their boat length measure whilst seeking an alternative solution in consultation with the Commission and that the Court would give a final decision on 22nd June, which the United Kingdom awaits with considerable interest.
Several hon. Members have asked whether there should be a general debate on fisheries questions. We have had previous debates on fisheries. They have shown how strongly my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has put this country's case in all the discussions in Brussels. I think that is recognised by both sides of the House. If there is to be another debate—I am not altogether excluding the possibility of such a debate in Government time—it is a good candidate for a Supply Day.
I give a similar reply to the hon. Gentleman who mentioned the possibility of a debate on immigration. He seemed to think that a debate chosen by the Opposition for a Supply Day was in some way unsatisfactory. That is not so. The whole purpose of Supply Day provisions under our parliamentary arrangements is to give the Opposition the opportunity to raise important matters. That would be a perfectly proper matter to be debated on a Supply Day. I am sure that in the Conservative Party, just as in the Labour Party, representations can be made through party arrangements regarding the subjects to be chosen for Supply time. The hon. Gentleman can certainly put his case to his Front Bench on that matter.
The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) referred to the operation of citizens' advice bureaux and the possible effects upon them of changes in local government finance. I confess that I did not understand the absolute urgency of the case that he was making. I did not

fully appreciate why the matter had to be settled before we departed for the Whitsun Recess. I am sure that it must have been my failure, rather than his, that I did not get the proper connection between the two.
As far as I know, there has been no alteration in the general support that is given to citizens' advice bureaux. I acknowledge that they do a fine job. They certainly do in my constituency. I believe that they should be supported in every possible way. I do not know of any alteration in policy which affects them. If so, it would be a proper matter to be raised under the normal procedures when we return after the recess.
The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), among other matters to which I shall come later, referred particularly to the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee. I gather that negotiations about an increase in chemists' profit margins, the shelf life of drugs and calculating the value of stock have been proceeding for about a year—quite unknown to me originally. Sir Patrick Nairne, the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Health and Social Security, wrote to the Chairman of the PSNC at the end of March explaining why the Department could not agree to the committee's case.
The chairman replied last week and held a Press conference. The reply said that Sir Patrick's explanation was not acceptable and that they would have to consider what further steps to take. They said that they would be approaching Ministers. That approach has not yet been made. We shall have to depart for the Whitsun Recess without having solved that question.
Mention has also been made of the Prices Bill and how it will work. There have been several questions and discussions about some of the votes and decisions in the Committee on that Bill. The Bill will be returned to the House in the first week after the recess. We shall then have debates on these issues. That is the proper time for major question on that topic.
I shall turn in a moment to the two major questions concerning direct elections and the other vital matter that has been raised. But, first, I must deal with a few other issues. My hon. Friend the


Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Shaw) mentioned information booths. The Home Office Voluntary Service Unit is giving grants in excess of £60,000 to help homeless young people arriving in the West End of London without adequate accommodation. I understand that an additional fund of £10,000 towards the improvement of existing services has been rejected by the voluntary organisations that are promoting the idea of information booths. The Home Secretary is considering whether the money should be used as a contribution towards an improved advisory service at one of the main terminals.
The hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) raised the important matter of the operation of the closed shop. He mentioned the case of Mr. Kenneth Edwards. I shall not comment on the case or anything to do with it. It would not be right for me to do so without surveying all the facts. This is not the correct occasion on which to deal with the individual case. That is particularly so if representations are continuing or dicussions taking place between the unions and the employers concerned. I am not sure whether the hon. Member said that the matter had been concluded.
There is considerable misapprehension by the hon. Member and others about the nature of the legislation. It was not intended to enforce closed shops, nor did it favour closed shops. The legislation was designed to remove the ban on closed shops that was incorporated in previous legislation. We lifted the ban partly because it had been proved in the courts that it was impossible to operate and partly because it could be a potent cause of strikes and injustice to individuals.
For those reasons we believed that the provisions of the 1971 Act had to be abolished. They were abolished, but that did not mean that the Government were laying down the terms of union membership agreements that could be made in different places, different trades and different operations. That is still a matter for negotiation between employers and trade unions. In the case raised by the hon. Member for Thanet, East a large number of trade unions are involved.
In that legislation, we also said that in dealing with unfair dismissal there should be exemption on the ground of religion.

We went through all the arguments why provisions should be defined clearly and accurately and why the issue of conscience could not be provided for in the same way. It is not proper for me to reply to an individual case. I am not passing judgment one way or the other. It would not be right for me to do so in the course of my reply.

Mr. Aitken: The Leader of the House suggested that he would try to encourage conciliation procedures that are still open in this case. I hope that he understands that we on the Conservative Benches cannot allow him to get away with this parrot cry, which suggests that the Government were neutral on the closed shop. They were about as neutral on the matter as a green traffic light. The Leader of the House must understand that this case would not have arisen had it not been for his legislation.

Mr. Foot: Before our legislation was introduced there were many arguments about people having their livelihoods taken away from them because of the closed shop. The hon. Member for Thanet, East is not right. I know that it is propaganda for people to take that view, but it is not true to say that the law that we introduced favoured or condemned closed shops. Our legislation removed an unworkable law that the Conservatives sought to impose upon the country. They said that closed shops should be illegal, but that was found to be unenforceable and the ban was removed.

Mr. Leon Brittan: How can the Leader of the House possibly say that the legislation was neutral on this issue? When a person is dismissed he is entitled to compensation except when he is dismissed because of a closed shop situation. Does that not mean that the employer is encouraged to enter into a closed shop agreement and that the employee has no redress, as a result of the Government's legislation?

Mr. Foot: We went through all these arguments at length. Parliament came to a different conclusion. We never accepted the view that the hon. Member seeks to present. We said that it was impossible to try to make closed shops illegal. It was found to be so in the courts. The


courts said that they could not enforce that law. Few closed shops were effectively banned by the operation of the 1971 Act. It was an unworkable Act.
With the concurrence of the Opposition we said that we must remove that unworkable law. We changed it, not because the Government wanted to insist on closed shops. We said that it was for trade unions and employers to act in a liberal manner in these matters.
I am not pronouncing about the employer or the individual concerned in the case raised by the hon. Member for Thanet, East. It would be a great mistake if we went back to that legislation and returned to the unworkable methods forced through the House in the 1971 Act.
I come now to the speech of the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). I do not think that he should have spoken about the security measures and the difficulties in Northern Ireland in the way in which he did. Everyone in the House agrees with what has been said by another hon. Member. Everyone agrees with what has been said about the appalling difficulties with which people have had to contend in Northern Ireland, and how bravely it has been done by both the security forces and the people of Northern Ireland. I should certainly accept everything that is said by anyone on that subject. However, so far from assisting people in Northern Ireland, I believe that it can do positive injury to suggest that the Government are not seeking to do everything that they possibly can to provide proper security and protection, and to do it in concert with members of the Unionist Party, among others, and other leaders in Northern Ireland.
There have been discussions between the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Mr. West the leader of the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland—with which I understand the hon. Gentleman is in some respect still associated. Of course there have been discussions to try to improve security measures all the time, and some of those discussions are already bearing further fruit. However, I believe that all hon. Members from Northern Ireland, whatever views they may hold, must know that the Government have

taken every possible step that we think is advisable to try to deal with the appalling difficulties there.
I also think that it was very ill-advised of the hon. Gentleman—I think that this applies to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire as well—to talk about an inordinate delay in proceeding with the proposal to refer to the Speaker's Conference the question of representation from Northern Ireland. We are the Government who have taken the step of proposing that this matter should be specifically referred to the Speaker's Conference. We hope that we shall get agreement from all sections of the House to carry that forward as a specific reference. We agreed to that and made that statement in the debates that we had a month or so ago in this House, and I am sure that those from Northern Ireland with whom we had discussions will agree that we are carrying through our obligation.
As a Government, we are absolutely committed to carrying through that discussion and referring the matter to the Speaker's Conference, and, in my belief, to securing from that Speaker's Conference a rectification of the injustice that Northern Ireland has suffered in this respect. It is a great pity if any hon. Members, in any quarter of the House, cast doubts on our intentions about this matter, or repeat any attack on our good intentions, because we are determined to carry through the pledge that we gave to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and those who came to see us then.

Mr. James Molyneaux:: I thank the Lord President for giving me the opportunity to confirm what he said. The Prime Minister wrote to me on Monday last setting out the arrangements for the Speaker's Conference to deal with Northern Ireland as a matter of priority.

Mr. Foot: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I certainly hope that there will be no delay in carrying through that discussion and in producing the results.
I think that I have dealt with almost every other subject except the main one—although that is not to pass any judgment—

Sir Anthony Royle: Before the right hon. Gentleman comes to the main subject—direct elections—will he cover the points that I made about the fourth terminal at London Airport?

Mr. Foot: I am sure that that is dealt with somewhere in the maze of papers before me—although it is the subject of the next debate. So much was I on tenterhooks to reply to the hon. Gentleman on this subject that it almost escaped my attention that he would be able to raise the matter in the next debate. I should not like to interfere with his greater elaboration on the subject. I am sure that the rest of the House will be eager to stay to listen to every word that he wishes to uttter on the subject, but if by any chance there is any hon. Member, in any quarter of the House, not in that curious position, I am prepared to give the hon. Gentleman an answer on the subject.
I understand that the British Airports Authority's proposal to build a fourth terminal at Heathrow has been the subject of consultation between the Authority and the local planning authorities already directly concerned. In the light of their views, my right hon. Friend is considering whether it would be expedient for there to be a direction making the proposed development the subject of normal planning control. That would be an essential first step towards the statutory public inquiry.
I hope that that, perhaps, will relieve the House of having to hear another speech from the hon. Gentleman—in which case I shall be doubly applauded.
I turn now to the references to the newspapers, introduced first by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. White-head) and one or two others. I do not see why people should be so sensitive about these matters being raised. After all, the newspapers are not always so reticent in making comments about us, and I think that occasionally it may be possible for us to indicate the feeling of Members of the House. I shall not comment at all on the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton. I think that he expressed the matter admirably. I hope that what he said will be reprinted on the front page of the Daily Mail

tomorrow. We shall all look forward to reading that newspaper on that account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North asked me whether I would give an undertaking, or whether there could be an undertaking, that any question of the amalgamation of the Evening Standard with the Evening News, or any other amalgamation of the Beaverbrook Press with other newspapers, would be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I cannot give that guarantee in those terms. However, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's general view. I think that the possibility of the destruction of the Evening Standard should be a matter of great public concern and interest. I say that not only because of my past connections with the newspaper but because I believe that the Evening Standard is one of the finest newspapers in the land. Up to a year or so ago it was edited by one of the very greatest of modern editors, Mr. Charles Wintour. I quite agree with the remarks that my hon. Friend made on this matter, and I should like to see Mr. Charles Wintour's comments printed very prominently in the other newspaper, too.
All those newspapers, perhaps, engaged in the argument about the freedom of the Press a few years ago. I think that they might also ensure that what Mr. Wintour has said is fully printed. In saying that, I certainly mean no adverse comment in any sense about Sir Max Aitken, who is a very old friend of mine. I hope that with full health he will be able to play a leading part in saving his newspaper. I wish him the very best of success in doing so. He is one of the Few who saved this country in the 1940s. I believe that it is in that spirit that we should speak of him. I wish him the greatest success in trying to deal with a highly difficult situation in the newspaper industry.
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said about the desirability of trying to sustain as many of these newspapers as possible.

Mr. William Molloy: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the loss of the Evening News and the Evening Standard would have an almost irreparable adverse effect on millions of Londoners? Even if these two great newspapers were melded together, that would not be altogether satisfactory. However,


it would be a terrible tragedy if the people who owned the Daily Mail ran any evening newspaper. We should then be in the terrible situation of never receiving honest news or maintaining good standards.

Mr. Foot: I have said previously that I believe that the collapse of the Evening Standard would be a tragedy for London and a tragedy for journalism and for newspapers generally. It would also be a tragedy if the Evening Standard fell into the hands of Harmsworth. I believe that the best comment on the whole of this situation has been made today by Charles Wintour, and it is on that comment that I should like to rest.

Mr. Whitehead: I endorse everything that my right hon. Friend has said, particularly the way in which he has spoken personally about Sir Max Aitken. However, in the event of there being an announcement, during the recess, of a successful Associated Newspaper bid for the Beaverbrook Group, will the Government stand by or will they not?

Mr. Foot: The Government are deeply concerned about the situation and have had discussions with various people to see how they can assist. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Use your best endeavours."] I am coming to that in a moment. We certainly wish to do anything we can to ensure that a wide range of newspapers is sustained. It would be a tragedy for London, and for the country, if the Evening Standard were to be destroyed.

Sir H. Wilson: This is an Adjournment debate, which has ranged very wide. I have played my part in it. What we are trying to do is debate the case before the House goes into recess. The House will be rising for two weeks. I know that this is a hypothetical situation, but my right hon. Friend has referred to the possibility of there being an agreement about a merger, including the one he has specifically referred to, namely the Evening Standard and the Evening News. It might go wider than that. Can he give an assurance that if there is such a merger requiring the fiat of the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection no action will be taken to confirm it without reference to the Monopolies Commission? Will my right hon. Friend also say that no such action

will be taken without the House having the opportunity to express its view?

Mr. Foot: I certainly understand what my right hon. Friend has said. He is a greater authority than I am on the merger clause of the legislation. But there are some provisions in it under which the merger can take place in particular circumstances where the Minister cannot intervene. However, I am in no sense seeking to detract from what I have said before. We are very much concerned about this and we are eager to assist if we can. I do not believe that the danger that we have discussed still remains.
I turn to two or three other points that have been raised. First, with regard to direct elections, the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) put a specific question to me. I hope that I can reply satisfactorily. He hoped that I would not take refuge in obscurity. I trust that will be the case. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we are still bound by the commitment that appeared in the Queen's Speech. We are. He asked whether there would be a genuinely free vote on the form of voting. That was one of the agreements that the Prime Minister and I reached with the Liberal Party. There was a special clause in that understanding which referred specifically to this question. We are, of course, bound by the undertakings that we gave. I am glad that this understanding is now getting wider and wider acceptance in all parts of the House. I believe that what we have agreed can be of benefit to the country as a whole.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire professed to be greatly mystified because I used the word "communication" when I was speaking earlier. Perhaps he thought it had some real significance and, maybe, that Jubilee Year had gone to my head. I think it was a perfectly reasonable thing to do, because there are different ways in which the matter can be dealt with or communicated to the House after the recess. It can be done by a statement, or by the presentation of the Bill itself, or by some other indication. I do not think there is any need for the right hon. Gentleman to be mystified.
What I was doing when I made that statement was to allay the doubts of


hon. Gentlemen who asked that there should be some early indication to the House of what we propose to do. I indicated that in the week when we return there will be a communication to the House, and I am sure that that will enable everyone to understand how we propose to proceed on the matter. But we shall be seeking to carry out all the obligations that we have undertaken to the House and to all those with whom we have discussed the matter.

Mr. Dykes: Will the Lord President say whether he is personally in favour of direct elections in May/June 1978?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman is now putting a different point. I have already answered the question that he put in his speech, but he does not seem to be satisfied. He will have to wait for another fortnight to understand this question. The hon. Member for Southend, West asked that I should lift the curtain. I have lifted the curtain. The hon. Gentleman can now see that I have nothing at all to conceal. I therefore hope he is perfectly satisfied. The House does not need to work itself up into any great passion about this matter. I used the word "communication" for the very good reason that it covers all eventualities but the House will learn exactly what we are proposing when we return.

Sir Anthony Royle: I asked a specific question about what part the right hon. Gentleman played in Cabinet with regard to the faction opposing the bringing forward of the Bill. He seems to have left that question unanswered.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman knows that that was a fatuous question and that I was not going to reply to it. I have mentioned on many occasions that it was Lord Chatham who once said that all British Cabinets are divided. That was said a couple of centuries ago. It is, of course, true that occasional differences of opinion arise in Cabinet but it is no mystery that what Cabinets do is to argue about the different points of view, resolve them and communicate the result to the House. The word "communication" must have come from Lord Chatham himself.
There was finally the question of phase 3. The right hon. Gentleman was very disturbed because he did not think that

we would achieve a phase 3 in quite the precise exact form that he would wish. I must say that I remember what the Opposition said about phases 1 and 2. Some Conservative Members were not sure what they should do about phase 1. When we came to the House in 1975 and secured an agreement which we believe to be highly desirable in order to tackle the menace of inflation the Opposition did not know what to do. They did not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. But when we discussed the first main clause in Committee they said that it was a constitutional monstrosity, even though they had allowed it to go through on Second Reading. They then said that they did not think it would work, but a few months later it became apparent that it was working and they were even more angry.
They were also not at all sure what to think about the second year. They were slightly more critical in that period, but it was a marginal affair, because they did not want to say which side they were on. All that the Opposition say with regard to phase 3 is that it should be near to phases 1 and 2.

Mr. Pym: The right hon. Gentleman will answer how he likes. What I was saying was that the kind of phase 3 which is now being talked about is a totally different one from that which the Government told the House they wanted and was necessary. They have changed their minds.

Mr. Foot: The Government have indicated that they wish to secure a phase 3 agreement between themselves and the trade unions. We have said that on many occasions. We are having discussions to secure it. But the right hon. Gentleman, who never secured any agreement with the trade unions, must not be too impatient. After all, the Conservatives landed the country in absolute catastrophe with the worst industrial relations situation that we have known for a quarter of a century.
Between 1970 and 1974 more days were lost in industrial disputes than during any other comparable period in British history, apart from the year or two after the First World War. We will not therefore accept any lectures from the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends about how to deal with these matters.


They did not secure any worthwhile agreement on any form of incomes policy. All they did was to leave us not merely a record balance of payments deficit—five to six times as great as the record deficit they left us in 1964—but record inflation in the pipeline. The rate of inflation the following November was 17 per cent. and in the following January and February it was 24 and 25 per cent. All that was in the pipeline. I can understand that the Conservatives do not want to rake all that up again.
The right hon. Member mentioned the subject of a General Election. Of course the Conservatives would like to have one. This point was raised in connection with the understanding that has been reached between the Government and the Liberal Party. We understand why the Conservatives do not like that agreement, and we understand that they do not want the Government to command a majority in the House, but they must learn to put up with it. A General Election may be some time off—quite a long time. When we debate the Whitsun Adjournment in May 1979, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will still be raising these matters. I hope that by then the

question of direct elections will have proceeded in some form or other. No doubt we shall have dealt with the London terminal. Possibly the Opposition will have plucked up enough courage to have debates on the subjects proposed by some Conservative Members. We shall be prepared for a General Election at the proper time and for the return of a Labour Government who can forge ahead with policies that will save the country. Therefore I ask the House to pass this motion with an enthusiasm that might have been even greater before I got up to speak.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House at its rising to-morrow do adjourn till Monday 13íh June.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE:

Ordered,
That at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, for a period after Ten o'clock equal to that spent on the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Adjournment (Spring).—[Mr. Graham.]

AIRPORT POLICY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]

7.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): This is an eventful day. The House has had a long debate on why no one wants to go on holiday. We are now proceeding to debate airports policy, and I hesitate to get too involved after that because the following subject is a very esoteric and beguiling one relating to statute law repeals. I see that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department is here to tell us why we are to repeal
An Act to attaint Sir John Fenwick Baronett of High Treason.
or
An Act to inflict Pains and Penalties on John Plunket.
and all such fascinating matters.
It is welcome that we should be discussing this matter of airport policy at this time so that hon. Members can participate in a consultative process that began some time ago. Naturally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade would have wished to participate in this debate, but, as hon. Members will appreciate, he is in Moscow for discussions about Anglo-Soviet trade.
For the first time in the relatively short history of aviation in this country, a Government—the present Labour Government—are trying to establish a national airport strategy. It is long overdue. The evidence of the lack of any measure of co-ordination in the past, is regretably, plain for all to see. Airports—and at this stage I would be hesitant to identify particular airports—have, in all too many instances, been erected as local authority virility symbols. National requirements have entered into those considerations barely at all.
Soon after we took office in 1974, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, now Secretary of State for the Environment, and I resolved that we would try to design such a strategy. But how were we to go about achieving this goal? How could we hope to overcome understandably parochial considerations in favour of a clear national need?
The starting point for the policy review was the decision in March 1974 to reappraise the Maplin Airport project. In consequence, that project was abandoned in July 1974. No doubt there are some who still regret the cancellation of Maplin—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—the antediluvian Members, and I recognise that, for many living in areas near to the existing London airports, Maplin presented a distant prospect of relief from the disturbance caused by aircraft noise. But the decision to abandon Maplin was widely accepted—it was widely accepted in the House—and I have no doubt that developments since then, both in the air transport industry and more widely, have confirmed its justification. The forecast growth of air traffic is now less than was predicted at the time of the Maplin review, and the economic situation would suggest the need for extreme caution in undertaking a project, which not only would have been a severe burden on public expenditure but the commercial viability of which would have been a matter of considerable reservation. Indeed, I venture to suggest that Maplin might have qualified in no time at all as one of the biggest bulls ever of the white elephant herd.
Two considerations have been paramount in the Government's approach to the review of airports policy—first, as I have already said, the need to place future airport developments within a national context; secondly, the emphasis on consultation.
I think it would be fair to say that both these aspects have been widely welcomed. Past decisions on airports policy have all too often been taken without reference to the views of those affected, with the result that subsequent opposition and practical difficulties have led to delays and, sometimes, the need to withdraw the proposed developments altogether. It is just not right that people should not be consulted on matters which can be of very great concern to them. We, therefore, opted for consultation, full and detailed consultation, designed to seek out and take account of the views of all those affected. There was, however, a price to be paid for adopting this course. Consultation, if it is to be worth while, takes time. Delay in making final decisions was inevitable, and delay means some anxiety and uncertainty for all those


concerned—airport authorities, airlines, those working at airports and those whose major concern is protection of the environment.
I appreciate that full well, but I believe that although the Opposition environment spokesman has complained about the delay, it was right that we did what we did, and the price has been worth paying. So we produced a two-part consultation document on airports strategy, and this debate will complete the very wide consultations which followed from the publication of these documents.
Throughout the consultative process the close involvement of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett), as Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment, and myself has emphasised the joint concern of the Departments of Trade and Environment with the development of airports policy.
As a result, there is now a much greater awareness of the environmental impact of airport developments—something to which my hon. Friend and I can fully testify. We have been involved in most worthwhile discussions, and in many respects the views of hon. Members who have come to see us, of local authorities and other bodies, have made a major contribution to influencing the way in which we think on these matters. This is important, and it is right that the expected effects of possible airport developments should be displayed in advance of any decision.
I hope that through this consultation process, which in many respects, has been a unique exercise in participation, both the Government and those consulted will have learned a great deal more about the likely impact of any developments and that this will be reflected in the decisions that will need to be taken, not only in central Government but more widely.
Further, in relation to the consultations, there is a special need, in the case of airports outside the South-East of England, to provide a framework against which the possible development of regional airports, a number of which are in direct competition with each other, can be assessed. The consultation documents sought to provide such a framework as a basis for discussion.
The two consultation documents attempted to provide the basic information for an assessment of how a national strategy might evolve. Following the consultations, we are hopeful that we can present, in due course, a realistic and forward-looking policy. I must emphasise that it is not our intention to produce a blueprint or a precise plan for each airport throughout the country. With the inevitable uncertainties about air traffic forecasts, about economic growth, not only here but elsewhere, about technological developments in aircraft and engine design, and about continuing progress in the abatement of noise around airports, it is essential that any airports policy must be flexible and must be capable of adapting to changing circumstances. What we are looking for is a broad framework against which individual decisions about airport developments can be assessed. This is not easy, and there are many issues to consider.
We cast the net of the consultation process very widely throughout Great Britain. Over 1,000 organisations were invited to submit their views, including all the major local authorities, economic planning councils, airport committees, airport managements, trade unions, aviation interests, including airlines, and amenity groups. There has been a massive response from these and many other organisations, and, most important of all, a large number of individual members of the public have also submitted comments. This is something that we wanted to see, and we have not been disappointed.
In company with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, I have met many of the principal organisations involved, and I and my colleagues have also visited all the major airports throughout England, Scotland and Wales. I have been to Belfast, too, but it does not fall into the same area of discussion. I believe it was right that we should have learned these facts of life first hand rather than, as was once stated in a letter in a legal case with which I was concerned, through "here say". There could, in my view, be no substitute for listening to the views of the people on the spot and not relying on here say evidence however eloquently described in ministerial briefs. The latter is not the right way of going about this important topic.
Decisions about airport developments will inevitably be controversial and disruptive to some people. I accept that, and I cannot pretend that a process of consultation will make the decisions, which must ultimately be taken by the Government, any more palatable. They will be welcomed by some and deplored by others. Indeed, if they were to be wholly popular I think we should have introduced the greatest miracle since Moses struck the rock. I am sure that the debate this evening will demonstrate the fact that there are no easy solutions. But I hope, at least, that the consultation process will have led to a greater awareness by all concerned of the issues involved.
Before I comment on some of the issues which have been raised in the consultations, there are a number of general points concerning the airport strategy documents which are of importance and to which I should draw the attention of the House.
First, our approach to the review of airports policy has assumed that an efficient air transport system is of considerable benefit to the United Kingdom. Business travel by air is today an essential requirement of international trade and of Government, but it is by no means the exclusive privilege of the business man or of the rich. It is sometimes overlooked that about three-quarters of air travel, to and from the United Kingdom, is leisure traffic. The substantial reduction in the real cost of air travel in recent years has brought overseas travel and holidays within the reach of an increasing proportion of our people.
Equally, the aviation industry provides employment for many thousands. And, despite the slowing down of growth, particularly in the two years following the oil crisis, air transport remains a growth industry and one in which the United Kingdom is still a major force.
Secondly, it is the Government's objective to ensure that there are adequate airport facilities available in this country to meet the demand for air travel. Some of those who have commented on the consultation documents have suggested that this is an assumption which they do not accept. I do not think that it is a tenable position for any Government deliberately to seek to depress the demand

for air travel by prohibiting the provision of the necessary facilities on the ground.
This does not mean that there should be no constraints on the air transport industry, or on the way in which airports are permitted to develop, or on the way aviation activity impinges on local communities. Far from it. But it does mean that the Government are not prepared to consider a policy which depends on the suppresion of demand. What we have to do is to keep a balance between capacity arguments and demands. This is a fundamentally and monumentally difficult task. As Dave Allen once said, "To keep a balance you need a chip on both shoulders". He is probably right.

Mr. Ronald Bell: If the demand becomes such that the balance is disturbed and is impossible to maintain, how can one restore the balance except by suppressing demand?

Mr. Davis: That is not a position that is likely to arise. The hon. and learned Member is citing a purely hypothetical situation which does not bear any relevance to the information in the consultation documents. He may say that the consultation documents are wrong, but that would not be a proper assertion. The documents are well thought out, and they carefully analyse the situation. It is for the House to make up its mind on these matters.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The Under-Secretary said that it was not his function to suppress demand. Can he confirm that his right hon. Friend will be delineating an energy policy, and bearing in mind the potential shortage and high cost of oil, might it not be necessary for him to consider suppressing demand in order to conserve vital oil supplies?

Mr. Davis: I do not know about that, but at this stage it is hypothetical. I do not see that, within the areas covered by the consultation documents and the predictions up to 1990, there will be any such need.
This question of balance has relevance to the regional situation. People will say that they do not want any increase in air activity because of the price to be paid in environmental damage. I have to balance these things at all times.
Thirdly, in the consultation document, we proposed, as a starting point, a framework which did not envisage the construction in the immediate future of a new airport. This was a realisation of our national position and of the priorities we have to set ourselves. In the present economic circumstances, and especially with the constraints on public expenditure which are likely to persist for a number of years, this must remain the position.
It follows, therefore, that a priority in the review of airports policy has been the more effective use of existing airports. But this does not necessarily mean the expansion of every airport ultimately to the limit of its capacity, any more than it means that a new airport is excluded for all time. It does suggest an exhaustive look at the contribution which the existing airports are able to make, and indeed will have to make, in the London area, within the constraints imposed by time, no less than other considerations, up to 1990.
Finally, in this connection—I fear it is not my final "finally"—I refer to the proposal by the British Airports Authority to build a fourth terminal at Heathrow. This was a matter which some hon. Members thought appropriate to raise in the previous debate in the hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would be able to produce a more convincing answer than I am able to produce. I am aware that this has generated a great deal of anxiety in the communities in the vicinity of the airport, and I know that some of them have advocated that there should be a public inquiry into the project. I do not propose to comment on the question of an inquiry, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is represented here tonight by his Under-Secretary of State, but I think it is important to place the fourth terminal in the context of a developing airports strategy.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) announced in the House on 18th July 1974 the Government's decision to abandon the Maplin project, he made it clear that whether or not Maplin were built, capacity at Heathrow would need to be expanded to 38 million passengers a year, by the provision of a fourth terminal. The fourth

terminal was seen as an essential requirement to meet the demand for airport capacity in the short term. As such, it was in a different category from those developments discussed in the consultation document, which were concerned with the longer term.
These, then, are the parameters within which the consultations have been conducted. At this stage, I cannot anticipate the Government's conclusions on future airports policy, but I think that the House may find it helpful to be aware of some of the major issues which have emerged.
I make no apologies for mentioning first aircraft noise—a matter of special concern to me and to my Department. In this connection and to avoid any misunderstanding, I think it might help the House if I were to explain the respective responsibilities of the Departments of Trade and the Environment in relation to airports policy. The two Departments have co-operated closely in the review of policy, the production of the consultation documents, and the subsequent consultations. However, in this work, the Department of Trade has been concerned predominantly with those matters concerning the air transport industry and aircraft noise, whereas the Department of the Environment's main interest has been in the planning and related implications.
Aircraft noise must be a crucial consideration in the development of any airports policy. It is a subject which has received extensive and detailed consideration in the airport strategy documents. I am the first to recognise the distress caused by the pestilence of aircraft noise. Few would argue that aircraft noise is to be compared with, say, Beethoven's Fifth Symphony as being the most sublime noise that has ever penetrated the ear of man. What the consultation documents attempted to provide was an assessment of how this situation might develop in the future. There has been a degree of scepticism about the general improvement in the noise situation shown in the consultation documents and a continuing dissatisfaction—and I understand it very well—with the methodolgy adopted in quantifying aircraft noise disturbance. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) has on a number of occasions mentioned his anxieties, and these are legitimate criticisms.
I do not pretend that the methodology is perfect or that the forecasts must be right. All forecasting is an uncertain business, no matter what area of activity is involved. But forecasts, whether of future traffic or noise disturbance, are essential to the formulation of a long-term airports policy and to understanding the effects of particular airport developments. One has to try. I can assure the Houe that the noise forecasts have been prepared on the basis of the best information available of the way in which we believe that aircraft noise disturbance is likely to develop. The noise improvement shown by the newer types of aircraft gives some substance to the forecasts, but I am not in the least complacent. We are always trying to improve our techniques and we shall continue to monitor the trends in this field and to examine the scope for speeding up the improvement.
Similarly, we intend to continue research into the best way of measuring noise, but I believe that the noise and number index, which is similar to indices used in other countries, is a reasonable tool for these purposes. The NNI has one major advantage in that it affords a comparison between airports and also with the past.
On the general question of aircraft noise, as I have said and as is demonstrated by aircraft such as the Lockheed Tri-star and the European Airbus, the future holds promise of real and substantial improvement. However, I cannot pretend that there will be a sudden and dramatic improvement. It would be dishonest to suppose that any panacea is readily available to eradicate this disturbing phenomenon. It may be comforting to dream the impossible dream, but we have to live in a world of reality. Improvement will come gradually as the older aircraft are phased out and their new replacements are required to meet increasingly more rigorous noise regulations. We are considering how the process might be hastened but, in the meantime, it is the Government's intention that all practicable measures should be taken to contain the nuisance of aircraft noise.
A wide variety of noise abatement measures are already deployed such as limitations on night jet movements, the

monitoring of take-off noise levels, minimum noise routes, preferential runway systems, quieter approach techniques, currently being tried out at Heathrow, a runway alternation system at Heathrow, control of engine ground running, and noise insulation grants. I and my Department are always prepared to consult interested parties on ways in which improvements can be made. For example, in the case of night jet restrictions the House will know that I have recently circulated a consultative document dealing with the ways in which the noise situation might be further improved. We are presently seeking the views of many people, including all those hon. Members concerned with Heathrow, Gatwick, and other organisations, on the matters considered in that document. I believe the House will recognise that this represents a further indication of our efforts to deal with this most intractable problem.
It is evident from the forecasts and the consultations that Heathrow is by far the worst noise-affected airport in the country. It is also the case that, although there are real expectations of improvement in the longer term, more people will continue to be affected by aircraft noise at Heathrow than at other airports, however much they might be expanded. We have to recognise these facts. And expansion of some of the regional airports could lead to more disturbance than further expansion of the London airports, other than Heathrow.
A second important area in the consultations has been the planning implications. It is not my intention to comment on these matters, which are the responsibility of my hon. Friend, who will no doubt wish to cover these issues when he replies to the debate. There is, however, one matter to which I wish to refer. I should like to acknowledge the important contribution which the local authorities, and other organisations, with their particular knowledge of local conditions and local needs, have made to the consultation process.
There has been a tendency in some quarters to argue that an airport, and in particular proposals for its expansion, is in some way separate from the local, industrial and social environment. Because of the noise they can create and the


traffic that they generate, airports inevitably have wider effects than other indusand a major part of the industrial infrastructure in many areas. Heathrow, for example, is a vital part of the economy of many areas to the West of London and far wider than that. It provides a great deal of employment, and high paid employment at that, to many thousands of people over a wide area. It makes a major contribution to the rates income of a number of local authorities. And air transport is a growth industry that it would be absolute folly for us to ignore.
The third and final major issue that I wish to raise is that of the regional airports, and particularly the relationship between them and the London airports. Attention is inevitably directed towards the London area, but the Government's policy review, and our debate today, is concerned with Great Britain as a whole.
A major consideration in this relationship is the suggestion that has been frequently put forward that traffic should be diverted away from the London area. There are good reasons why this should be considered seriously. It would provide relief to the congestion in the South East, might limit the need for additional investment at the London area airports, and at the same time could provide much-needed employment at airports in regions where there is a serious unemployment problem.
However, the analyses that we have carried out of the possibilities for such diversions are not greatly encouraging. I should not wish to rule out at this stage the possibility of some transfer of traffic away from the South-East to the regions, but it would be quite wrong for me to encourage the expectation that diversion to the regions will provide the answer to our problems. The other side of the coin, however, is that we want to make it possible for those, who have to travel from the North and West and elsewhere to join a flight in London to be able to use airports outside the South East to do that. Encouragement of that might be welcomed.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The Minister is extremely helpful. He has said that he is looking at the possibility of diverting traffic from Heathrow.

Could that be linked with the noisier aircraft so that they would not come into London but would go elsewhere?

Mr. Davis: That is a most charitable attitude on the part of the hon. Gentleman. He will have to make his peace with others and not expect any reply, but that is a novel suggestion.
In my opening remarks I emphasised the importance that the Government attach to consultation in the development of future airports strategy. It was our intention in the documents to provide the detailed information on the many issues involved that is essential if those to be consulted are to participate fully in the process. We have responded to all requests for additional information, beyond that provided in the two consultation documents. We have been determined to enable all those involved with or affected by airports to feel they have had ample opportunity to influence the formulation of policy affecting many millions of our people.
I believe that we have gone a long way to achieving these objectives, which culminate in our debate today. I am under no illusions that, in this way, the eventual decisions will be uncontroversial. But I am hopeful that the statement of future airports policy that the Secretary of State for Trade hopes to make in the late summer or early autumn will be both better informed and better understood as a result of the consultations that have received such wide encouragement and support.
As I have already indicated, I am grateful to hon. Members who have come to see the hon. Member for Greenwich and myself because it is important that they should have an opportunity to express their views. My hon. Friend and I will listen with interest to the views of hon. Members which, I am sure, will have an important bearing on the decisions that we shall ultimately make.
I hope that the House will support the general lines of the strategy that I have outlined and particularly in the process of consultation, which is somewhat unique. It is only in this way that essential areas of policy that are non-party political can be dealt with. It is right that people who will be radically affected in their ways of life—and I have mentioned the types of


organisation that are likely to be affected—should have an opportunity to have their say, because the man in Whitehall does not necessarily know best.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I have always been an enthusiast for watching the Winter Olympic Games on television, and while listening to the Minister's problems tonight I thought that if there should ever be a thin-ice Olympics for people who can skate delicately over thin ice without actually falling in I should nominate the Minister as Great Britain's representative. The hon. Gentleman has just given us half an hour of concerned speech, but I must admit that by the end of it I had been driven firmly to the conclusion that he had said absolutely nothing at all. Perhaps that was the Minister's objective If it was, he did it very well.
The previous Conservative Government accepted the public expenditure consequences of its decision and decided to build Maplin as a new large London airport that would be capable of coping with future expansion and of creaming off some of the pressure from existing airports. We accepted that that was a controversial decision and that it could be expensive. We felt that in terms of human suffering and problems the alternative would be even more expensive. We never pretended that it would be a cheap solution to an extremely difficult problem, but we believed that it would put an end to the Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton saga, which is now still dragging on.
The Minister said tonight that we could not afford Maplin, yet the Government have incurred more than £30 billion of debt during their term of office. They have raised £30 billion and used that money to prop up consumption. It is true that there are not now resources available for capital expenditure, but there could have been. The Government are responsible for the fact that, to a large extent, they chose to use available resources in a different way.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the decision was taken soon after we were returned to office. Why did not the hon. Gentleman's party oppose the decision to abandon Maplin? The hon. Gentleman knows

well that the Tory Party belatedly recognised that it was a hopeless project and it had to be abandoned. We had the courage to do it.

Mr. Parkinson: The Minister has a fine habit of making cowardly feeble decisions sound like brave ones. There was nothing brave about abandoning the idea of Maplin. The Government abandoned the only policy that offered London any prospect of relief and they have nothing to offer London in its place except the prospect of consultation. It is no wonder that the Minister talked about consultation all the time, because that is the only thing that the Government have to offer. It is the Government's excuse for now having no policy. That is the inevitable consequence of the Government's decision and the Minister cannot skate round the fact that the traffic through the four London airports is bound to increase significantly between now and the late 1980s. Those four London airports will take the brunt of the expansion of air traffic in this country. Although there is changed attitude to Maplin and a revised forecast downwards there is no way that even the reduced forecast traffic can be catered for without major changes and developments at the four London airports. The Minister knows that at some time he will have to tell the House that.
In the first of the two documents the Government set out the range of options open and the ways in which the problems of the London area might be tackled. Having abandoned the previous Government's policy, and not having a replacement policy, the Government have decided to make a virtue out of that and to launch a prolonged period of consultations. I formed the impression from the Minister tonight that the longer those consultations go on the better the Government will be pleased, because they are terrified of having to reach a decision at the end.
The first question that we have to ask in any discussion of airports policy is whether we are satisfied that the projections on which the documents are based can be relied upon. It would be absurd to make plans and incure expenditure on the basis of projections that turned out to be wrongly based and we have a considerable number of examples of long-term plans based on future projections in this country and elsewhere that have


not turned out to be true. An obvious example is that there are many empty teacher training colleges and there are likely to be many more, because a long-term projection was proved false. I was in Canada recently. That country is covered with magnificent university campuses that are only half full because the long-term projections for university places have proved false.
Have the revised assumptions for United Kingdom population in 1980 and 1990—which have shown a dramatic drop—been taken into account in arriving at the projections on which the policy documents are based? I may have missed this point, but I do not see it mentioned in the documents. There has been a dramatic downward revision in the past few years in the forecasts of United Kingdom population. One of the assumptions used in arriving at the projections for demand has already been proved false, and when one looks at the criteria used, one's confidence in the projections becomes a little less sure.
A downward adjustment has been made for the growth of incomes and consumption, a wider range of options has been adopted for air fares and the assumption that there will be no further increase in real terms in fuel prices beyond the 1974 level is retained. Some of those assumptions are highly conjectural and the assumption about fuel prices looks very suspicious. I have some figures from the Library showing that even since September the price of jet fuel has increased by an average of 22 per cent.
Some of the projections must have a question mark hanging over them. If one looks further into the whole question of energy that was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith), one is forced to ask whether the fuel will be available to power the planes that will be necessary to move the huge number of people that we expect to travel in the future.
Aviation enthusiasts have no doubt that the long-term projections will be fulfilled and that there will be a tremendous growth in passenger travel. My hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who has a graphic way of expressing himself, said that the people who have doubts about the growth in air

travel and whether it can be sustained are like those who thought that the city of New York could not be expanded. One of the principal reasons for their belief that there was a limit to the expansion of that city was that so many horses would be needed to transport the increased population that the whole of New York would disappear under a sea of horse manure.
That rather dolorous prediction did not come true and I am not satisfied that it is a satisfactory answer to those who have doubts whether the world's energy supplies will stand up to projections about increased world travel.
I was interested to read about President Carter's new approach to energy problems and I note that he did not make much of the point about the demand of aviation on the world energy supply. However, I was intrigued to read the statement of two of his energy officials, who said:
The airlines are tied right now to one narrow cut of the petroleum barrel. Airlines cannot use wood or coal in their jet engines, so they should be more concerned than they are. Airlines have always had that ' cannot happen here' syndrome.
I think that that is true, and I remain unconvinced that if the British or American Governments had to choose between keeping people flying overseas and keeping them warm and at work they would not opt for keeping people flying overseas.
Serious question marks hang over some of the projections in these documents. The Government recognise the uncertainty by the very wide range of possibilities set out in the documents. For 1982 they are prepared to make projections only within the range of 40 million and 59 million passengers and for 1990 between 74 million and 120 million passengers. Those are pretty wide margins for error.
I think that the Minister would agree that the Government do not have a lot of confidence in the projections and that they accept that there are question marks against them. They are not as settled as the fact that they appear on printed paper may suggest.
A recurring theme throughout the Minister's speech and in a number of submissions on this subject is the idea that all future developments must take place against the background of a


national airports policy. Some of the more ambitious submissions want such a policy as part of a co-ordinated transport policy. That sounds a fine and laudable ambition, and the Minister started by saying that that was his objective, but the more he explained the difficulties and the more he talked about flexibility, and so on, the more one realised that it is almost impossible to attain.
That is interesting. I read a document produced by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England which quotes from a CAA report on the development of the United Kingdom airport system. It reads:
The CAA stated that whilst it believed the idea of a single comprehensive exercise leading to a plan of an ideal airport network to serve the Country's future aviation needs…has an undoubted appeal, on closer examination it appears very difficult indeed to develop this approach in a plan of research that is both practicable and relevant to real policy issues.
In the building industry, of which I have some knowledge, there is a mythical all-purpose instrument. The building industry is waiting for its invention. It is called a sky-hook. One of the traditional jokes that men in the building industry play on new apprentices is to send them to the company stores for a sky-hook. A sky-hook is a unique imaginary instrument that every builder needs when he has a heavy weight to load in an impossible situation. The secret of this wonderful instrument is that it may be thrown up into the sky, where it fixes itself on nothing. By its means we may lift almost anything. Everybody wishes that he had one. This co-ordinated national airports policy is in danger of becoming the same sort of panacea as the sky-hook is to the building industry.
I was interested to read the submission of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. It is hard on a number of people, and politicians in particular. It speaks of the cause of the interminable delay in evolving a national airports policy by implication. It says:
The cause of this interminable delay has been that the airports debate has been dominated by arguments about the wrong things. Elected politicians are nervous about upsetting floating voters in critical seats.
What is wrong with that? It continues:
The CAA seems not to enjoy the autonomy intended for it.

What it means is that the CAA does not share our view.
Airline operators sensibly seek to minimise the cost of externally-imposed change. Meanwhile, the BAA understandably seeks to direct political attention to its natural power-base in South-East England; agencies sponsored by Ministries other than the Department of Trade still show scant interest in the airports question; too many individual towns and cities have wanted ' their' airport to be the big one, while the environmentalists would seemingly prefer to move airports rather than cure airport noise.
I quote that in detail as there is enthusiasm for the co-ordinated airports policy. In the course of expressing its enthusiasm it sets out the reasons why that is almost virtually impossible to attain. I should like to see a co-ordinated airports policy, just as I am waiting for the invention of the sky-hook, but we should not place too much faith in finding one.
Under the present arrangements, whether we like it or not, we have succeeded in catering for a spectacular growth of air transport movements in this country. There are at present 43 airports reporting to the CAA. There is no shortage of runway capacity. There is a range of options open to us. I do not have faith that the answer will be found. I do not think that there is an answer. I wish there were.

Mr. Clinton Davis: I should be interested to learn from the hon. Gentleman, who appears to be terribly pessimistic about working out any alternative solution to the present chaos, what is the view of the Conservative Party. The hon. Gentleman writes off the possibility of obtaining a national airport strategy. Is he coming down in favour of returning to the idea of Maplin? What is he urging upon the House?

Mr. Parkinson: Perhaps the Minister will contain his impatience. I remind him that even with the benefit of his great Department and the advice of thousands of people, he is unable to tell us anything. If he will let me finish my speech I hope that he will have a better idea of where I stand.
The search for the answer could be long and unproductive. I do not think that there is any single answer. I shall explain towards the end of my speech one or two constructive suggestions that


I have in mind. The Minister spoke for half an hour. I intend to speak for the same length of time.
We should not be too quick to write off the ad hoc approach. I suspect that, at the end of the day, the White Paper will be dressed up as something rather different and will be much nearer to the ad hoc approach of the 1960s than to the central airport strategy that the Minister seeks. I am not saying that he is not right to try to find it. I am warning him not to be disappointed if he does not find it. The signs are that, at present, following the slow-down in 1974, the growth in passenger traffic has resumed. In 1976, there was a growth of 9·2 per cent. over the previous year. I understand that that pattern is continuing and that the British Airports Authority is reasonably confident that the predictions in the lower range will have to be catered for. I have expressed reservations about that.
The next major question is whether the implications of these proposals are acceptable. Should we arrange to deal with them or should we work within imposed limits, as a number of environmentalist bodies, including the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, suggest? In its document "Towards a National Airports Policy", the CPRE makes the valid point that the forecasts are all forecasts of demand, unrestrained by airport capacity. Plans are made on the basis of present growth trends continuing.
The CPRE makes the further important point that a growing number of people in every developing country are resisting the extension of capacity at existing airports or the building of new ones. There is a growing mood of questioning whether we should base our policies on forecasts of unrestrained demand, which we must learn to live with. People ask whether we should accept that as a basis for our thinking. This is certainly the basis of the consultative documents and of the Government's assumptions that we must cater for a certain number of people. I hope that the Government will take this questioning into account in their White Paper.
Two assumptions underlie the Government's approach in the documents—first, that the services of air transport benefit the economy and individual citizens; secondly, that airport developments must take into account the effects on regional planning strategies and the areas surrounding airports—that we must not evolve a policy, for instance, which runs counter to the South-East Regional Study but must try to co-ordinate those two approaches.
Most of us would accept the first assumption, that air transport provides invisible earnings, highly-paid and satisfying jobs in a growth industry and is an invaluable adjunct to our rapidly growing and important tourist industry. For those who work in the industry and those who use its services, it is undoubtedly a boon. For those who live near airports but do not work there and who are affected by the noise and other problems, they are something less than a boon.
I want to devote the rest of my speech to suggestions for lessening the problems of the South-East, to the benefit of those in the South-East and of the regions, some, though not all, of whom would welcome the transfer of business to their regional airports. At a growing number of regional airports, pressure groups are building up against expansion. I am sure that the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) will confirm that there are a number in his area.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and other hon. Friends will no doubt confirm, the central problem mentioned by the Minister is that of aircraft noise. Many people who thought that the prospect of Maplin made their problems bearable, in the short term at least, will be in continuing difficulties.
However, there are a number of encouraging aspects. First, there is the growing proportion of passengers carried in wide-bodied planes, which has increased in the last three years from 15 per cent. to 30 per cent. of those travelling to Heathrow. As a result of this increased use of wide-bodied aircraft there has been a small but steady reduction in the number of aircraft movements in the last three years. Three million additional passengers have gone into Heathrow, yet


there has been a fall of 1½ per cent. in the number of movements. This is some encouragement to those living round Heathrow. Some of the projections of what might happen when the wide-bodied aircraft were introduced are now beginning to happen.
Another encouraging factor is that the energy problem puts great pressure on airlines to speed up re-equipment with more modern and fuel-efficient aircraft. That in itself should accelerate the process of improvement. One of the most encouraging pages in the consultative documents was the one saying that there had been a shrinkage in the areas adversely affected by noise. For those living round airports there are now encouraging signs that this improvement is firmly under way.
World airlines are now moving back into profit after a period of severe economic restraint, and they can now contemplate the cost of re-equipping their fleets. One problem has been that because the aircraft industry has been in such a mess throughout the world—although I am pleased to say that British Airways was in much less of a mess than its competitors—airlines have had difficulty in finding the cash to re-equip with more modern aircraft.
If the Government's plan is to be based on the expansion facilities in the South-East—and it is difficult to see how it could fail to be—we must accelerate the move towards quieter aircraft. This is an extremely difficult problem. I have great sympathy with the Minister in his efforts to achieve that acceleration. We must encourage airlines, by either the stick or the carrot, to use quieter aircraft. We must tell them that if they want to continue to use facilities in the South-East they will have to re-equip.
A number of interesting suggestions have been put to me. One is the idea of a limit on the noise contribution that an aircraft can make. It is suggested that we should tell airlines that if they exceed that limit they will have to cut back on their operations. This would give those airlines that have re-equipped with quieter aircraft a deserved bonus.
There is an American precedent. The Americans have made sure, by legislation, that by 1982 those airline operators that have not re-equipped with quieter aircraft

will suffer major financial penalties. I know that these things are difficult, but it is no good the Minister's substituting a period of consultation for a policy and not accepting that whilst the consultation has been going on the problem throughout the South-East has been getting worse and worse.
The Minister must give the airlines notice that they must accelerate their noise abatement and modernisation programmes. It will not be acceptable to have the level of aircraft movements contemplated unless a substantial number of them are in wider-bodied and more fuel-efficient aircraft.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the reduction in quotas that I have ensured has taken place, particularly at Gatwick? Is he also aware that there are now proposals, which are opposed by the aviation interests, on the way in which we should approach the whole question of night disturbance by jet flights? These are real attempts at making progress, which we can justifiably say enable people to look to the future with some degree of optimism.

Mr. Parkinson: I do not want to deny the Minister credit for his efforts to cut down night flying. I support the efforts that he has made. I am saying that we have been scratching at the surface of the problem, bearing in mind the projections that are set out in the various consultation documents. I agree that there have been some important but comparatively minor reliefs against the impending flood, but ways will have to be found, unless the airlines co-operate, of taking the pressure off the South-East by accelerating the process of modernisation.
The real worry in the South-East is the extent of the expansion. Something that will help calm fears more thany anything else is to agree a limit with local authorities and interested parties. The local authorities must know as soon as possible exactly what they are likely to have to face.
There is growing concern about expansion by stealth. The Minister has given the impression that everything is under control but recently the chairman of the British Airports Authority pointed out when giving evidence to a Select Committee that when we take into account the way in which access to Stansted has been


improved and the construction of the M11, there is no doubt that there will be major development at Stansted and that that airport will become more and more an attractive proposition for development by stealth. That danger is causing a great deal of concern in areas where the BAA is in control.
As the Minister knows, under the general development order procedure it is very much easier for the BAA to go ahead with development and expansion of the three airports under its control without consulting the local authority. I know of a number of authorities that are slightly sceptical about the idea of approaching the Secretary of State for the Environment to ask him to order an inquiry into plans that are being submitted by an agency that is controlled by the Secretary of State for Trade. There is a feeing that if there is any discussion of that sort to take place, there is a natural bias in Government towards the Department this is making the proposal.
I had intended to say rather more about the regions but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) will cover a number of the issues that I wanted to discuss.
There are those who say that it will be easy to switch passengers from London to the regions. At Manchester more people are affected by the airport than any airport outside Heathrow. A considerable number are affected. When we consider a number of other regional airports, we find that the number of people who are likely to be affected by expansion is considerable. There is no point in pretending that there is an easy way out that will ensure that passengers are transferred to areas such as Birmingham, where there is already an active anti-expansion group at work, or to Manchester, for example, where more and more people are being affected by aircraft noise.
It is most misleading to think that it will be possible to make an easy, comfortable transfer, switching people in large numbers from London to areas within striking distance of London without causing major disruptions.
The fifth appendix in the document on regional airports has been much misunderstood. It has been put to me that at a cost of only £13.50, in the form of a

surcharge on London, up to 50 per cent. of London's passengers can be shoved off elsewhere with no pain to anyone. I know that that is not the Ministry's view but the appendix is being read in that way. I shall send to the Minister a document in which it is stated quite clearly that it is now realised that the Department is just being awkward and that at a cost of £13.50 per passenger most of the problem will be solved. I mention this to the hon. Gentleman, because he is likely to come across this argument in the next few weeks and he should be preparing his answer to it.
The Opposition look forward to the White Paper. We look forward to the Minister reconciling the innumerable, apparently irreconcilable, arguments that have been put to him. Three years ago the Government abandoned a policy that would have brought relief to the South-East—the area that needs relief. We have had no policy at all for the last three years. The Government owe it to the House to end the uncertainty and to bring forward the White Paper as soon as possible.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Newens: The issue of airport strategy in the London area is not a matter which has only recently attracted public attention in North-West Essex, East Hertfordshire and my constituency.
Since 1963–64, when Stansted was selected in the Interdepartmental Committee Report as the third London airport, there has been deep local concern. When an attempt was made to ignore and override that concern, despite the conclusion of the inspector at the public inquiry which was held in 1966 that
it would be a calamity for the neighbourhood if a major airport were placed at Stansted,
an exceptional campaign developed opposing the proposed third London airport on that site. That campaign was not limited to the locality, to one political party or to narrowly based parochial objections.
I endeavoured to play my part in the opposition, together with Sir Peter Kirk, whose premature and tragic death only a few weeks ago shocked and saddened not only those who shared most of his views but others who, like myself, respected, admired and felt affection for


him despite profound political differences. Sir Peter and I, with many others, sought to demonstrate that the case for siting the third London airport at Stansted, which was the intention announced in the 1967 White Paper, was untenable not only on grounds of noise nuisance but on other much more fundamental grounds.
We argued that the development of a major airport at Stansted would, above all, be a devastating blow to any rational regional planning policy. We pointed out that Essex had been developed at an extremely rapid pace since the end of the Second World War and that, apart from the considerable growth of many villages and small towns, major development in the shape of Harlow New Town had taken place in the North-West of the county. If Stansted had become the third London airport, it would have required many thousands of workers and their families to move into the area, and they could have been accommodated only by urban development equivalent to another new town. The pressure on roads, services and land and the damage to agriculture would effectively and drastically have changed the character of what is virtually a sub-region and created vast problems. Those Londoners—I speak as one who orginated from the East End—who enjoyed the amenity provided by that part of the countryside would have had it taken from them.
The arguments put forward by those opposed to the plan at that stage where in due course utterly vindicated. The Roskill Commission not only did not recommend Stansted as the site for the third London airport but did not even place it among the four which it shortlisted as the most suitable sites. Even in the 1967 White Paper it was accepted by the Government that the strongest objection to Stansted as the third London airport was on regional planning grounds. Despite the building of the Mill, that objection has not grown any weaker with the passage of time.
The problem now is that we seem to have gone the full circle. The consultative document "Airport Strategy for Great Britain" indicates a return to accepting Stansted, along with Luton, as the solution to the problem of escalating air traffic in the London area. That is not only my view. The hon. Member

for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) quoted one passage—I shall quote another—from the October 1975 edition of Management Today. The article is based on British Airports Authority sources. The article referred to Mr. Nigel Foulkes of the British Airports Authority, and concluded:
Nigel Foulkes makes no secret of his opinion that 'there will not be another major airport built in this country in my lifetime'; which ironically takes us back to Stansted, the BAA's original selection as the expansion chamber for the South East, to use the chairman's carefully chosen words in last year's Annual Report.
I say categorically and clearly that if the BAA's and the Government's policy were to involve the expansion of Stansted by stealth or by a series of steps towards that which was originally envisaged and rejected by a public inquiry, Roskill and the Government, it would constitute a travesty of democracy and national planning. It would make a mockery of what has happened over the last 10 years.
I recognise that there are some pressure groups that wish this development to take place. It is unfortunate that aviation interests have repeatedly been over-represented on bodies responsible for giving advice to Ministers about airports policy. The consultation document apparently was produced by officials from the Department of Trade, the British Airports Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of the Environment. Those fundamentally concerned with air traffic considerations outnumbered those fundamentally concerned with the environment and regional planning by three to one.
I hope that my hon. Friend at the Department of the Environment will forgive my saying that the recent decision that his Department took against the expansion of Harlow does nothing to reassure me of the Department's grasp of the real planning issues that are at stake in the area. We do not even know where we are to house our own second generation in Harlow. If the expansion of Stansted were permitted on the lines that some people envisage, all the workers could not commute to the airport. The question of accommodation for these workers and their families has been pushed on one side and has not been given due weight.
The basic drive for the development of Stansted is coming from those who are concerned about air traffic growth rather than about environment and planning considerations. I believe that it is up to those of us who are concerned with the area to say quite frankly that we shall not be satisfied unless those planning considerations are given due weight.
It is not to be taken from this that I oppose automatically all expansion at Stansted. I do not believe that the late Sir Peter Kirk would have necessarily opposed all expansion at Stansted in principle. I do not believe that even the Essex County Council will oppose, as a reflex action, all expansion at Stansted. I accept that there are good arguments in favour of using the existing facilities to the full.
I believe that there are strong arguments for providing some security for the workers employed there, and even opportunities for more work. It is only right that in that area we should be prepared to consider taking some of the increased traffic which would otherwise become intolerable at Heathrow and Gatwick.
However—and I want to say this very clearly and deliberately—if any expansion is to occur at Stansted, it should be limited not just temporarily but permanently. I believe that the only ground on which people who are concerned with these issues could accept any expansion is if a ceiling is fixed and is fixed once and for all.

Sir George Sinclair: Limits should be set for each of the four main airports of the South-East.

Mr. Newens: I would be in favour of that. This is a consideration that is right on planning grounds.
At present we have some 250,000 passengers going through Stansted every year. If that figure rose to 4 million passengers a year, I think that perhaps it could be contained. However, there has also been mention of the figure of 16 million passengers a year. I believe that this would be utterly and completely unacceptable. It would require a degree of development that would wreck the area. I believe that this is recognised even in the consultation document. Before any expansion is accepted, my hon.

Friend the Minister or his right hon. Friend must make it clear that there is no possibility of expansion to that sort of level.
As I understand it, in the event of accepting 4 million passengers per annum, the present work force would be expanded to about 3,000 workers. If we took 16 million passengers per annum, it would need to rise to 14,000 workers. Those 14,000 workers and their families would require, in effect a new town, or the equivalent, to be built in the area, along with the roads, schools, services and other amenities required to provide those people with a decent standard of life.
Therefore, the absolute upper limit should in my view be 4 million passengers per year, with the 3,000 workers. I believe that this is the only basis on which we should consider any development taking place.
If, however, this limited expansion were agreed to, the Government must give cast-iron guarantees. As I have said, they must guarantee that 4 million is a final upper limit and that 3,000 is the consequent upper target for the work force. The Government must guarantee that the noise impact would be reduced by restrictions on training and night flights. The Government should guarantee that adequate arrangements will be made to provide accommodation for the workers.
It is just not good enough to say that Harlow expansion should not be permitted and that these workers should then be obliged to come into the area from elsewhere, so that all sorts of people will smuggle them in by using mobile homes and all sorts of other unacceptable dwellings and destroy what is part of the beautiful Essex countryside, which we in this House should regard as our heritage and should defend.
Furthermore, the Government must be prepared to provide the funds that will be required to make any necessary road improvements such as those on the A120 and at Bury Lodge Lane. If, however, present anticipations of the growth of air traffic after 1990 are realised—I believe that they will almost certainly be drastically changed by such factors as the energy crisis—it will be necessary to think out long-term solutions. In the event of insufficient airport accommodation in the area further thought must be


given to dispersing some of the traffic to the provinces.
Unlike the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) I do not accept that the Government would have been right to go ahead with the building of Maplin—as I believe he suggested—at the cost of cutting back very considerably on public expenditure devoted to health, education and many other forms of social welfare.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman has just spoiled what I thought was an excellent speech. What he has been doing is deploring a situation which is the inevitable consequence of not providing additional airport capacity in the London area. That option has been lost. There is no possibility of reviving that programme. It is no good the hon. Gentleman, or the Liberal Party who supported him, now moaning about the consequence of their actions. These are the inevitable consequences of scrapping the only alternative policy.

Mr. Newens: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman believes that I have spoiled a speech which he was kind enough to say was worth listening to. But I still believe that it would have been totally wrong—I must say this frankly to him and to his hon. Friends—for us to devote such a vast amount of public expenditure to Maplin in the circumstances with which we were faced, quite apart from any planning considerations. In that respect, I do not retreat from the position that I took. I should say that honestly and clearly to the House.
I do, however, believe that there is the necessity of a long-term solution. I am in no way seeking to run away from that. But I believe that in any long-term solution there are many factors not apparent to us now—which were illustrated by the example which the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South gave about traffic in New York—which will materialise in a few years' time and which may completely transform the situation. How many people at the end of the war would have thought that there was oil under the North-Sea to the extent that we talk about today? No-one imagined that it was possible.
It is quite clear that all of us benefit from air travel and what it means. Those of us who oppose development are not

Luddites. I personally believe that the question is one of having adequate regional and national planning. It is not enough to succumb to the pressure of the air traffic interests to the exclusion of adequate representation of the views of those who are concerned with regional, national and environmental planning considerations. I believe that many people in my area may well resist expansion on principle. I do not speak from that position, but I shall certainly resist to the uttermost—and I believe the bulk of the people in my area will resist to the uttermost—unlimited expansion.
If the Government wish to proceed with interim limits in the forthcoming White Paper, they need to give guarantees and to commit themselves to working out a long-term solution which does not involve the further expansion of Stansted by stealth, which would destroy the character of the area.
I do not apologise for devoting myself almost exclusively to the issue which arises in my own area, because I believe that, in the process of consultation, it is very necessary that these views should be clearly expressed. I do not wish to go over a wider area of ground because I should take up more time. I hope, nevertheless, that the Minister will recognise that the views that I have expressed this evening are held not only by myself but by many people who live in my constituency and in adjoining constituencies, and that they extend to people who do not hold my political views.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Toby Jessel: I listened with interest and a good deal of sympathy to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) when he spoke on behalf of his constituents and for those who live beyond the boundaries of his constituency in very pretty countryside, which has great character, in that part of the country. From the map in the consultation document I see that Harlow is only about five or seven miles from the end of the runway at Stansted, so there is little wonder that the hon. Gentleman is so concerned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) said, however the threat of a major expansion of Stansted arises directly and inevitably from the decision of the hon. Member's Government soon after they came into


office to carry out a review of Maplin which led to the decision in July 1974 to abandon it.
As a direct consequence of dropping Maplin, more and more traffic is inevitably to be crammed through the existing airports of Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted, unless deliberate and definite measures are taken to restrain it. At the beginning of his speech the Under-Secretary said that anybody who supported Maplin was antediluvian. If supporting the notion of an airport by the sea where the aircraft can take off and land over the sea instead of over residential districts is antediluvian, I am very proud to be antediluvian. I think that the Undersecretary and the hon. Member for Harlow will find that the time will come when they will regret not having been antediluvian. So, too, will most of the Liberal Party.
Where are the Liberals? They are not here. They never are here when we are discussing airport policy or aircraft noise. The last time I remember any Liberal being here for an airport debate was on the Second Reading of the Maplin Development Bill in 1971. I remember the occasion well because it was then that I made by maiden speech. I remember the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) speaking passionately against Maplin. I believe that the Liberal Party will suffer the consequences not only of their support of the Government, but also in the areas around the four existing London Airports they will suffer at the next General Election because of their hostility to Maplin. They played their part in getting Maplin abandoned. There has been a great deal of talk about the cost of the project, but we might do well to remember that it could have been paid for by a few months' oil revenue from the North Sea.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Why do the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) seem to say that the Conservative Party spoke with a united voice about Maplin? Did the Conservatives take steps to censure the Government when we announced our decision in July 1974? There was hardly a peep from the Conservative Party about that.

Mr. Jessel: Many of us spoke up very loudly at the time. Far from not making a peep, we made a very loud noise against Maplin being dropped. But at the time there was an oil crisis and people could not see how that would develop in the decades ahead. Perhaps a clearer pattern has emerged now. Nevertheless, I should emphasise that the overwhelming majority of Conservative Members were reluctant to see Maplin dropped in the summer of 1974, and the majority had voted for Maplin when the Development Bill came up in the previous Parliament.
The Under-Secretary has described aircraft noise as "a pestilence". He is right. It is a terrible nuisance to the communities who live near it. Some people do not mind it much, but to large numbers of people it means sheer fury and exasperation when they go into their gardens, or for a walk in the local park and have their ears assaulted and their nerves shattered by this violent noise. Their plight should evoke sympathy and compassion from people in other parts of the country who do not suffer from this problem. It is a major social evil in the communities that are affected by it. The time will come when future historians will wonder why our generation was so slow to deal with it.
I know that the Under-Secretary is trying in one way or another to alleviate this problem. He has said that the only real answer is quieter engines. But the time scale for that is far too long. There is a danger that we are raising hopes and creating expectations about quieter engines which cannot be met. In reply to a question I put last year the Undersecretary told me that 18 per cent. of aircraft using Heathrow were noise-certificated. He added that by 1980 the figure would be 30 per cent. and that by 1985 it would be 55 per cent. But that still means that in eight years time 45 per cent. of aircraft using Heathrow will not be noise-certificated, and that will be 45 per cent. of a larger number of aircraft than are using the airport now.
I am not sure that any of the forecasts about quieter engines can be met. I have heard recently that the manufacturers of two of the quietest wide-bodied aircraft—the TriStar and the Airbus—will cut back production because of lack of support from the airlines. Although quieter engines are the eventual solution, it is


hopeless to demand and useless to expect rapid enough progress towards this goal to satisfy those people who are suffering from aircraft noise now.
The Under-Secretary is right to talk of consultations with people. It is very easy for us in Parliament and for the civil servants studying these things to think in terms of time scales of five, 10, 15 or even 20 years. But those who are suffering from aircraft noise want something done urgently. To tell them that the noise from which they are suffering will be reduced by half in eight years time gives them practically no comfort at all.
The question of the fourth terminal at Heathrow was raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle). There has been a hint from both the Leader of the House and the Under-Secretary that there may be some possibility of an Article 4 direction leading to a public inquiry. I urge that course very strongly on the Undersecretary of State for the Environment. At present there is a feeling that the amount of consultation that has taken place has been inadequate. The borough that includes my constituency, as well as Richmond and Barnes, was not consulted, although it is very close to Heathrow and is heavily overflown. We shall be very much affected by the fourth terminal, the object of which is to increase the capacity of the airport. As people cannot see just that justice is being done, I believe the only way to handle the matter is to have a public inquiry.
I turn to the subject of utilisation of aircraft. A large number of the aircraft coming in and out of our airports are half empty as everybody knows. There are operational reasons, and sometimes they are making a stop at one airport and travelling on elsewhere and will fill up on the return journey. The airlines obviously think it worth while commercially to fly aircraft in those circumstances or they would not do it; but peace and quiet and the health of our people must not always take second place to commercial reasons. There is no reason why Governments, working together in the interests of the relief of aircraft noise, should not impose conditions on airlines forcing them to fly fewer aircraft and to fly them with more people in them. It is wrong that people

should be disturbed more than they need to be merely by dint of the fact that so many aircraft are so often half empty.
I turn to differential landing charges. I recently received a letter from the French Ambassador in London confirming that the French Government are carefully examining the efficiency of differential landing charges so that the noisiest aircraft will have to pay more to land. This would at least provide an incentive for the manufacture of quieter aircraft, and this may bring more revenue to the airport authorities, and that money can be provided for double-glazing and soundproofing to surrounding properties.
I saw in one evening newspaper that the Government had announced this morning that they intended to increase grants for double-glazing around Heathrow but apparently intended to increase grants only in those places that already received them. The present boundaries of the scheme are, in my view, far too narrow, because there are people four or so miles from the airport under major flight paths who do not qualify for such grants. It is absurd that the scheme is now administered according to borough boundaries which do not coincide with the noise and number index. I do not even fully trust that index, and I noted the Minister's comments. It is most unjust that my constituents are not eligible to receive grants for double-glazing when other people, who in some cases suffer less noise, are entitled to receive them.
I turn finally to the subject of the sharing out of noise. There is a major problem in my constituency over flight paths, as the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade well knows.
Some weeks ago I sent the Minister a memorandum in which I said that in a period of 12 months—which incidentally has already run for 23 months—the experimental Mole Valley split
has imposed on eastern take-off days an intolerable concentration of aircraft noise upon Whitton, Twickenham, Strawberry Hill and Teddington. This has occurred because 70 per cent. of the Mole Valley route (the Dunsfold route) coincides in these places with the Detling route, together comprising about 15,000 aircraft flights annually. These tend to be particularly noisy aircraft".
I was glad to receive confirmation from the Under-Secretary of State for Trade


that he intends to proceed with his consultation process in June and July, especially in the light of a reply to my Parliamentary Question on 16th May, when he said:
We are continuing with the existing noise abatement measures but I do not intend to make any alteration to the Mole Valley route this summer. Such alterations only involve shifting aircraft noise from one place to another."—[Official Report, 16th May 1977.]
It is that second sentence which has given rise to most concern. At first, the Minister said that it was to be a 12-month experiment. Now he says that it would be wrong to alter the route because that would only shift the noise from one place to another. But if that is wrong now, surely it was wrong to do that 23 months ago when the experiment began. Is it being suggested that the routes should be ossified where they are simply because the people under the present routes were the last to suffer from any change?
The Minister has a reputation for being concerned for the environment and for being fair-minded. I hope that he will handle this matter in a way that does not damage that reputation. What was wrong with his reply to my Question on 16th May was quite simply that it was not fair. I hope that he will bear that in mind during the consultations that are due to take place in June and July.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: All the hon. Members who have spoken so far represent constituencies in the Greater London area. I should like to take the debate down to the South-West for a short while and discuss some of the problems of one of those virility symbols to which the Minister referred, namely, the Lulsgate municipal airport, in Bristol.
We are used to virility symbols and indicators in Bristol. It was the starting place for the discovery of North America, and Concorde—which one can see at a glance is an obvious virility symbol—is built in greater Bristol. The virility symbol represented by the municipal airport dates back to the 1930s.
I wish to discuss some of Bristol's problems—these may also be faced by other municipal airports—as well as some of the opportunities that Bristol offers to the national airports strategy that the

Minister referred to, but did not reveal. Bristol Lulsgate could be more than useful in a national airport strategy I think and that view is broadly shared by the city council. It is a quite successful airport in terms of flights and passenger services; it runs much-demanded charter and holiday flights, for instance. Passenger travel figures from Bristol exceed those of all other airports in the South-West and of those for Rhoose; although that airport is in Wales, and the South-West and Wales are not the same thing by any means.
Despite the successful services that the airport provides for civil aviation, the resources of the city council are not sufficient to fund the new developments that are required at the airport if it is to maintain its present position or to expand. We need a new runway extension, an instrument landing system and improved terminal buildings. Unless these works are carried out—and they are probably beyond the capital-raising resources of the local authority—the flight operators who find the airport very useful will pull out and go elsewhere. The airport would then be reduced to handling mainly small aircraft, executive aircraft and private planes, but the revenue from such aircraft obviously would not be enough to meet the overheads and standing charges of the airport, because these are considerable, and increasing all the time.
It is accurate to say that Bristol City Council has grown to believe in the future of its airport. It was, after all, one of the first municipal airports in the country. The council would nevertheless be prepared to hand it over to a bigger authority as part of that national strategy to which the Minister has referred. Perhaps when we have the White Paper we shall know more about that strategy, but Bristol City Council believes that its airport has a place in it—not in the same way as Birmingham, Manchester or Glasgow airports, but as a second-league airport.
I now come to a point that has already been referred to in the debate. Bristol Airport could well cater for the overspill from Heathrow, Gatwick or any other London airport that might be constructed in the future. The Minister spoke about diverting aircraft from major airports to secondary ones. He said that there were


difficulties about it, but he did not explain the difficulties or even the area of the difficulties. I appreciate that wherever one puts an airport or tries to extend an existing airport there will be objections. One can take that for granted. Such objectors are already understandably present in the Lulsgate district—although it is a fairly open area. I told the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) that I should be raising this point today but he said that he could not be present. Lulsgate Airport is in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. The hon. Gentleman made the ingenious suggestion that instead of Lulsgate being further developed, Filton airfield, the BAC commercial airfield, should be developed. That airfield is closer to my constituency, as it happens, but Filton in any case has great limitations on its use for such purposes. It is fundamentally a factory airfield. It was designed as such and is also well within a heavily built-up area of South Gloucester and North-East Bristol.
The view of the city council then is that the present airport is capable of a great deal of development if it is given the funds. As I say, the council would be happy to see that development carried on by some new national authority. The optimistic view of the future of the airport is not limited to Bristol City Council; it is also the view of the South-West Economic Planning Council, which said quite recently—I believe at the beginning of the year—that Bristol was the most suitable airport in the South-West to be developed, extended and modernised.
In the view of the South-West Economic Planning Council, it may be used for traffic diverted from London. No other city in the United Kingdom is now so well placed for land communication. The M4 and M5 motorways converge on Bristol. Some of the fastest trains in the world run on the former Great Western line, now much improved, between Paddington and Bristol, Parkway and Temple Meads. If passenger traffic is diverted from London Airport as a result of weather conditions or flight overcrowding at London Airport, it is no inconvenience to travellers to come to Bristol, as they may be transported there on one of the fastest road and rail systems now available anywhere. Bristol is only 120 miles from London.

Sir G. Sinclair: Bristol also has the great intrinsic merit that passengers would be landing near and passing through a lovely and historic city.

Mr. Palmer: I endorse that, not only because of my natural pride in the city that I represent but because that was an accurate remark. I am obliged to the hon. Member.
Bristol has, as I say, almost perfect road communications. It also possesses a local pool of highly skilled aircraft workers. It is one of the aircraft industry centres. As the Concorde work tends to slow down we are threatened with redundancies here and there on the civil side. I hope there will not be too many. Much of the maintenance necessary for the running and flying of aircraft can be carried out in the Bristol area, as skilled labour is available. A growing airport means work and prosperity.
Of course, I believe that we need a national airport strategy. This is a relatively small country and is well adapted to a national strategy, but the subject needs much definition. The question of ownership is not too important, though I prefer, politically, public ownership, municipal or national. But I think that the question of ownership is secondary to effective management and the organised working together of local airports' managements. I think that airports within this linking could be managed in the general sense by the British Airports Authority.
My area has suffered much from the effects of the local government reorganisation carried out by the previous Administration. We have Avon County round our necks. The local government division of responsibilities left the responsibility for the airport with the district council. Hence, an alternative to the national authority getting the management responsibility might be a consortium of local authorities. That is a possibility which I know the city council has also considered. In the long run there is no contradiction in the two approaches, but if Bristol is to be selected for this national strategic purpose the airport should be financially assisted in the meantime. It is no good planning for the ultimate unless one considers a bridging operation in the meantime.
If Ministers have willed the end of a grand new national strategy for airports they must find the means. They cannot leave it to local initiatives, particularly when the finance depends on the strength of local rates. That is not the way for a great industrial nation to approach its airport needs.
I have said enough, I think, on behalf of Bristol. This airport is not running away from aircraft. It believes that aircraft are the business of an airport. A great deal is said, in this country and across the Atlantic, about the noise of Concorde, which is familiar to Bristolians. It does not trouble us so much, because we made the machine. Of course we must be concerned with amenity and peoples' daily lives, but in the end we are an industrial nation, and if we are to have a good future we should not forget it too easily.

9.42 p.m.

Sir George Sinclair: I am glad to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), who made some points that I hope to emphasise. If I speak a little more fully than has been my habit in recent debates, it is because many of my hon. Friends in Surrey and for some Sussex constituencies around Gatwick have asked me to make many of the points that we have in common and have discussed many times, rather than many of them all trying to get into the same debate.
Representing the Dorking constituency, in which Gatwick Airport is the main industrial complex, I have over the last 13 years received a great volume of representations from constituents demanding that the growth of the airport should be brought under control and a limit set to the disturbance of the environment in the air and on the ground.
On the other side of the constituency, to the west, people feel the impact of noise from aircraft using Heathrow.
The interchange of passengers and freight between these two dynamic international airports is already putting new demands on air, road and rail links that lie across my constituency. But many other constituencies, not only in Surrey but in East and West Sussex, suffer from

the growing disturbance caused by Gatwick.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The interchange to which my hon. Friend refers applies also east of Gatwick, where it is causing considerable and increasing disturbance.

Sir G. Sinclair: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enlarging on that point.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: It is a very good point.

Sir G. Sinclair: As the House will see, I am in close touch with my colleagues from the other areas. We have, individually and jointly, on behalf of our constituents, been pressing the Government to reduce the unacceptable effects of Gatwick. In this we have had the well-co-ordinated and determined support of the three county councils involved. They have made their joint and individual representations to the Minister in response to the consultative documents. In addition, in the past ten days a delegation from Surrey, supported by the serving Members, put their case personally before the two Ministers most concerned with this problem, and we are grateful for the reception that we received.
The full impact of the uncontrolled growth of Gatwick has been felt not only by residents but by the county councils which have had to shoulder heavy new responsibilities and rapidly increasing demands for services of all kinds, such as roads, housing, health, schools, police and fire services. All this has been necessary as a result of airport expansion over which these local authorities have had no planning control.
Present airport planning in the South-East is based on the assumption that passenger traffic will roughly double in the next ten years and that freight will keep pace. With the cancellation of Maplin, all this increase will have to be accommodated at the four main existing airports in the South-East, Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted. The impact on Gatwick of this development has been made clear by the airport authority. The current rate of passenger traffic at Gatwick is about 6 million a year. By 1985 this is planned to reach 16 million, and by the early 1990s it is planned to reach


25 million, which equals the number of passengers now passing through Heathrow. By the end of the same period it is planned that Heathrow will take between 35 million and 38 million passengers.
Unless policy decisions are taken now by the Government to limit the growth of these airports in the South-East, a course supported by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), it seems clear that Stansted, with its great runway, is in jeopardy of being developed steadily to take as much traffic as Gatwick will take in the early 1990s, about 25 million passengers. That is the risk. The Government should not think that simply by having no policy of control, they can off-load the whole of the growth of air traffic in the South-East on these four existing airports. That would lead to a serious human backlash.
The Government have promised a White Paper for the late summer or early autumn. Unless the Government set clear limits to the growth of traffic at these airports, I believe they will face growing resentment and resistance from people living in those areas that would be most deeply disturbed and disrupted by such uncontrolled development. That would lead to more reversals of policy in response to public indignation. The resulting uncertainty would be bad for the airports, bad for the airlines, bad for residents, and I fear that it would be worst of all for Stansted.
To relieve pressure on the four existing airports in the South-East, there are three main strategic courses open to the Government. I hope that in their White Paper they will commit themselves to all three.
The first course is to accept that pressure of air traffic in the South-East in the 1990s will outrun the capacity of the existing airports and may well, before that, outrun the tolerance of those living in the areas most affected by the expansion. If the Government accept that the bulk of the traffic must be accommodated in the South-East, they should follow the advice of the Surrey and East and West Sussex County Councils and begin to plan for an additional airport that will cause less dislocation and disturbance than the further expansion of the existing four airports.
The second course is to set limits to the expansion of the four airports. That would achieve two good results. It would give hope of relief for those living in the areas and it would give a real impetus to the development of alternative airport capacities to meet the overflow of demand for more air traffic.
For the orderly expansion of the four South-East airports within the limits set down, the public should be given a more effective say in what they can be persuaded to tolerate. It is they who are being made to bear the cost of the expansion in disturbance, in urban overdevelopment and in increased rates and taxes. One of the best ways of achieving this would be to require airport authorities to go through the normal planning procedures whenever they are seeking a significant internal expansion of airport capacity that will make new demands on the local government services required outside the airports. The planning authorities concerned with Gatwick—and all three counties worked together on this issue, through their standing conference—would, I know, welcome such responsibility.
The third course is to work out now a programme for diverting air traffic from the South-East to the regional airports outside the South-East that would welcome expansion. We have heard the arguments from successive Governments and we have heard the arguments expressed again today by the Minister and by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson)—namely, that no significant relief for the South-East could be achieved by such action. However, if the Government limit expansion of the existing airports in the South-East, the surplus demand for travel to and from the United Kingdom will seek outlets elsewhere.
As I shall explain later, an incentive should be added. Before I turn to that issue, I remind the Minister that a promise was made by the Labour Government when they cancelled Maplin that they would ease the burden of air traffic on the existing airports in the South-East by developing regional airports. Perhaps the Minister will say what they have achieved in redeeming that pledge by comparison with the amount of investment that they have put into the existing four airports in the South-East.
I believe that there is a course of action available that would provide additional incentives. That is outlined in Part 2 of the consultative document at Appendix 5. If combined with a limitation on traffic at the existing main airports in the South-East, this would spread the burden and the benefits of air traffic more evenly between the South-East and the other regions. Put simply, it would be to levy a charge on aircraft using the South-East airports. This should be reinforced by using the revenue to make a comparable reduction of charges at airports in other regions. The main prospect of achieving large-scale diversions to regional airports outside the South-East by the joint measures of limitation in one area and financial reward in the other would, I suggest, be in the charter business, and especially in the package tours.
The Minister has just pointed out that two-thirds of the air passenger traffic in the United Kingdom is leisure traffic. A major opportunity is to concentrate on the package and charter tour operators to see whether the airports that they use can be spread more widely.
With the spectacular improvement in inter-city rail services, which have been mentioned by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East, the package tour operators could make good arrangements with the hotels in regional cities and with British Railways to use regional airports more fully. That point has been made strongly to me by my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) who has once or twice intervened successfully.
Such a dispersal would spread some of the economic benefits to the regional cities and would offer easy mobility between them and London. Above all, it would relieve the South-East of the unfair share of air traffic serving the whole country with which it is now overburdened.
So much for the strategic plan for airports. One other basic factor mentioned by the Minister which has so far caused the greatest public indignation, resentment and resistance, not only in this country, but in all countries with great international airports, is aircraft noise.
Good international progress has been made in requiring that planes being built now or in future shall have to pass noise tests before they can get their noise certificates. Already a quieter generation of planes is emerging, however slowly. We believe that the Government, in their White Paper, should lay down a programme over the next few years for the steady reduction in the number of planes without noise certificates. A first step, and a great relief to residents living near airports, would be to reduce rapidly to zero the number of non-certificated noisy planes which are allowed to use our airports during the night.
By 1985—only eight years ahead—the American Federal Aircraft Authority aims to have introduced a much improved American domestic regulation which would drive many of the second-hand noisier aircraft off the American routes. But many of these would find their way into the international market. Unless steps are taken by our Government to control the licensing of such aircraft to fly in Britain, many of them could find their way to this country or to European operators using our airports.
The problem of concentrating noisy planes is already acute at Gatwick. It is all very well for the Minister and others to hold out hopes of quieter planes bringing relief, but listen to these figures relating to Gatwick: of the 116 planes based regularly on Gatwick over the last year, only five held noise certificates, and only 1 per cent. of the total jet movements at Gatwick during that period were by noise-certificated planes.
Recently, the Department of Trade announced its intention to move airline operators of wholly chartered services at Heathrow to Gatwick. An obvious danger in this move is that the majority of wholly chartered service operators are not major flag carriers and would therefore be more likely to operate old and noisier types of aircraft and, in some cases, second-hand aircraft purchased from the major airlines as they replace their fleets with noise-certificated aircraft.

It being Ten o'clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, those opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Ashton,]

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ashton.]

Airport Policy

Sir G. Sinclair: I was about to conclude and to say that this may be the last chance for many years to relieve the South-East of an unfair share of the burden of air traffic that serves the whole of the country. If in their White Paper the Government fail to face up to this problem they will be failing not only our generation but generations to come.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Clemitson: It is clear that for the foreseeable future Maplin is a dead duck and that there will be no completely new airport in the country. It is also clear that there will be a continued growth in air traffic, although there may be argument about the size of that growth.
There is a degree of agreement in the House tonight that as much traffic as possible should be diverted to regional airports. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) made an eloquent plea that some traffic should go to Bristol. Despite that, there will be an increase in air traffic at South-East airports. That is an inescapable conclusion for the foreseeable future.
I wish to address the House about the effect of that expansion on Luton airport. First, I want to speak of the future size of that airport. The first of the consultative documents presents a number of possible alternatives. They are contained on page 31 of the document. Two of the alternatives, F and H, suggest that Luton might expand to take 5 million passengers a year. Another two alternatives, G and J, suggest that Luton might expand to take 10 million passengers a year. We reached a peak of almost 3¾ million passengers in 1972–73 before the Court Line collapse. A total of 5 million is not therefore a particularly big increase.
Currently, about 1·7 million passengers a year go through Luton Airport. The Luton District Council, the county authority, and I believe that the lower of

the two figures is preferable at this stage and for as far ahead as one can see. A total of 5 million passengers could be accommodated, as the document says, within the existing or planned terminal facilities.
The document is a little inaccurate in that respect. It says that improvements to the existing terminal arrangements are now being carried out and that the airport could accommodate a throughput of 5 million passengers a year. But, the fourth stage of the development of the terminal building has not taken place. It has been held in abeyance because the Secretary of State said that he wanted to see how the first three stages of the development worked out before permission for the fourth stage was granted.
Even if the four stages are completed, I am informed, there will have to be fairly careful scheduling of flights, and so on, to accommodate 5 million passengers, even with the completed terminal building. However, with that building there will be the facilities to accommodate 5 million passengers.
It would also have beneficial employment effects. A figure of 1,000 extra jobs is quoted in the document. That could possibly be doubled if the multiplier effects are taken into account. I would regard the increase in employment as a not unimportant factor. In Luton we have an imbalance of jobs, in the sense that we have a very high proportion of jobs in manufacturing industry as compared with jobs in service industries. It is very much out of line with the national average, and a few more jobs in the service sector to balance the manufacturing sector jobs would not come amiss. It would also not come amiss for there to be job opportunities other than those offered by the few very large multinational companies that dominate employment in Luton. I also happen to believe that employment in manufacturing is in long-term decline, and clearly any employment in other spheres is to be welcomed.
An expansion to 5 million passengers could also be accommodated pretty much within the existing transport and road system, and the noise consequences of an expansion to 5 million would not be particularly great. On the other hand, as the document points out, an expansion to 10 million would put us in a rather different ball game, for a number of


reasons. Clearly, there would need to be built a second terminal. The document quotes a figure of £40 million, in terms of building a second terminal and presumably other facilities as well. That figure may be an under-estimate. I do not know.
Clearly there would be a much greater employment effect, which, in itself, may be no bad thing. The secondary effects in terms of housing provision, and so on, would be very large indeed, and it would put a tremendous burden upon transport facilities—road facilities, possibly rail facilities, and so on.
Therefore, certainly at this stage, it looks as though a figure of 10 million passengers would bring certain very large imbalances into the community and would present a number of very serious and very major planning and environmental problems.
I want to comment on the mix of use of the airport. We have been almost totally reliant at Luton Airport on holiday package tour traffic. The collapse of Court Line hit us very badly indeed. As I have said, we were running at well over 3 million passengers a year. We are now down to about half of that number. There is clearly a need for some scheduled services to run from Luton Airport. I also believe that there is a need for an increase in freight traffic from Luton Airport. Looking at the figures in the British Airports Authority's Annual Report, Luton sticks out like a sore thumb in having by far the smallest amount of freight traffic of any airport of any size in the country, or indeed, in Europe as a whole. If there were more freight traffic, particularly in terms of small-volume, high-price commodities, this could have considerable beneficial effects on local industry.
The last point I want to make relates to the question of ownership, because that certainly exercises the minds of the local authority and of many people in the town. It certainly exercises my mind as well. The document on regional airport strategy talks of the question of ownership, and one paragraph argues the case for what is called "common ownership". I found that a somewhat strange use of the term "common ownership" because, as a believer in Clause 4, I believe in common ownership very much. However, there

are various forms of common ownership and it seems to me that municipal ownership is a perfectly legitimate and laudable form of common ownership.
I should like to say a few words in favour of the retention of municipal ownership. Clearly the Luton Borough Council has shown itself perfectly capable of running an airport pretty efficiently considering that in 1972–73 it made a surplus of 1½ million and even in the last financial year it made a surplus of £300,000 despite the trauma of the Court Line collapse and so on. The industrial relations record is pretty good. But the main argument is that there is a great deal to be said for local democratic control. We have rightly heard a great deal about the environmental problems which airports cause, such as noise problems and the rest. But surely a local authority is particularly sensitive to those problems. It has to be, because at the end of the day the ballot box is brought into play and people can be voted in or out. Pressure can also be brought to bear in a much more direct and rapid way than on any national authority.
The document argues, or at least suggests, that national ownership would make it easier to have common policies But I would submit that a common policy could be worked out and operated without national ownership. The document acknowledges that the performance of airport owners has been of a consistently high standard. It seems to me that the onus of proof must be on those who wish to change the pattern of ownership to national ownership.
I would strongly advocate that the ownership, certainly of Luton Airport, should be left in the control of the local authority. This virility symbol is one of which we are rightly proud in Luton. In Luton Airport we have a successful example of municipal enterprise. There is, of course, a need for an intelligent and clear airports policy. Of course we need to provide efficient services to take into account environmental factors. We need as far as possible to integrate with other forms of transport and all the other things that have been said. Luton Airport has an important part to play in such a policy and the owners of Luton Airport, who include myself, will co-operate to the full in devising such a policy and successfully operating it.

10.15 p.m.

Sir George Young: The hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) has made a speech with a strong constituency flavour, as have most other Back Benchers. Although my constituency is within a few miles of Heathrow, I should like to develop some of the more strategic issues raised by the Undersecretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) in his perceptive comments.
We have paid a very high price in this country for the expansion of air travel in Britain. Cheap, fast, quieter and popular aeroplanes have meant, paradoxically, expensive, slow, noisy and unpopular airports.
For a country of its size, the United Kingdom now has more airports than any other Western European country. Indeed, this debate on airport policy provokes the obvious comment that this country has had too little policy and too much airport.
Historically, the distribution and development of our airports have taken place with no reference to any national airport plan; with little reference to the pattern of aircraft movements and changing aviation technology; in isolation—or defiance of—regional development plans; in blind disregard of the peace and comfort of those who live in their vicinity; and often in apparent ignorance of the presence of other airports in the same catchment area.
As a result, there are now some areas of the United Kingdom which merit an airport but which do not have one; and others which do not merit an airport, and which have one, two, or, in some cases, three. If a national airport policy had existed, we would never have built airports at both Prestwick and Abbotsinch; Birmingham and Coventry; Liverpool and Manchester; Southampton and Bournemouth; Newcastle and Teesside; Cardiff and Bristol. Paradoxically, we are now further away from a coherent national airport policy than we were over thirty years ago.
In 1945, a White Paper was issued with the intention of ensuring that
orderly expansion of air transport".

The Government at that time took the view that strict control was essential to ensure the orderly development of airports in relation to traffic growth and changes in aircraft technology, and that the State alone could provide adequate resources for this balanced development. In 1947, the Government therefore announced that it was going to acquire 46 airports.
During the 1950s, this policy of central guidance was abandoned, and then reversed. The Select Committee on Estimates in 1955 looked at civil airports and recommended that municipalities be encouraged to acquire and operate their own airports. This policy of decentralisation was eventually adopted and set out in a White Paper in 1961. Airports were sold to local authorities in the belief that this would encourage a more commercial aproach to airport operation—a belief not justified by subsequent events. The inevitable consequences have been that since the war we have not had a coherent national airport policy. Consequently ad hoc development of individual airports has taken place with no conception of their role in the overall pattern of national and international transport.
The Edwards Committee's report—Cmnd. 4018—"British Air Transport in the Seventies", put its finger on the problem:
There is little doubt too that in more than one case civic pride has galloped ahead of cold economic assessment with some wasted resources
A coherent national airport policy would have avoided this scandalous waste of resources, not least the construction of Liverpool Airport. I understand that it has been quite busy today with a fair number of people arriving from Rome, for understandable reasons, but I gather that that is a hiccup in its normal operation.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that Speke Airport has one of the most advanced runways in Britain, that it is the most important overflow for Manchester Airport, that it has fewer foggy days than Manchester, that it has better visibility and less pollution, and that it is far superior to any other airport in the United Kingdom, apart from London Airport?

Sir G. Young: I am now much better informed about the advantages of Liverpool Airport, but I stick to my view that it has been a total disaster in commercial terms for the ratepayers of Liverpool who have had to pay for it. We look forward, however, to hearing more from my hon. Friend about the advantages of his airport, and quite clearly he is interested in its continued operation.
A national airport policy would also have avoided the confusion and blight of the last few years which has clouded the future of areas such as Gatwick, Cublington, Luton, Stansted and Foulness. Again, the Edwards Committee pointed its finger at the culprit:
To forecast our national airport needs, and then to create and develop the facilities, is bound to be a very difficult exercise. But although it is easy to exaggerate what could, in fact, be achieved by a study in depth, it is worse to tackle each problem on a purely ad hoc basis. One can at least show where the decisions and projected decisions are consistent one with another.
That is the answer to those who have expressed doubts about the feasibility of a national airport policy. The answer is contained in the history of the Edwards Committee and in the fact that in the last thirty years we have staggered on without a national policy and have wasted an incredible amount of money.
In the 1970–71 Session the First Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, " British Airports Authority ", page 15, commented directly on this matter. It said:
Your Committee regrets the present dilatoriness in starting to prepare a national plan.
The analysis of the problem by the Edwards Committee was, in my view, beyond reproach. However, its conclusions—highly relevant to our debate today—start from a false premise. This is set out in paragraph 71 when the Committee took as its starting point that
The primary long term objective of Government policy towards civil aviation should be to ensure that the customer, be it for personal travel or freight, should be able to buy what he wants at the minimum economic price compatible with safety.
The Minister, in his opening remarks, confirmed that that is still his Department's philosophy.
In my brief remarks this evening, I hope to show that the implied policy of the Edwards Committee and indeed of

this Government, as displayed in the consultative document, of continuing to meet demand as it manifests itself is totally untenable.
Airport policy must be placed in context, and its impact on other policy areas carefully assessed. Historically, we have tended to deal with the expansion of existing airports or the construction of new ones in isolation, and we have ignored their relationship to regional policy, employment opportunities, the transport network and environmental considerations.
I shall examine briefly the relationship between airport policy and tourism policy since the vast majority of those using the airports are tourists who need hotels, access to tourist attractions, theatres, taxis and so on. A policy for airports must be reconciled with a policy for all the related activities indulged in by those who use airports. Historically, we have tended to deal with these separate areas individually without any broad strategy to guide us.
An example of this is the fact that the debate on Maplin took place without any regard for the impact that a third London airport would have on the demand for hotels in London. The Government's policy on hotel development incentives did not take into account the impact of the construction of new hotels on the demand for supply of hotel labour in London.
Perhaps I can demonstrate my concern by using the forecasts of the Roskill Commission, which looked at the case for a third London airport and related that to its impact on London. Looking ahead, the Commission forecast 26 million tourists in 1991 and 40 million by the year 2006. The demand for a third London airport was based on these projections. However, no one ever asks what 40 million visitors in the year 2006 means to London. No one suggested that it might not be in the national interest, let alone the national capacity, to continue to accommodate more and more visitors from overseas. No one—and here perhaps the GLC was at fault—looked at the strategic implications for London of building an airport of that size, and London, after all, is where overseas visitors would have had to come from Maplin.
I noticed that when the Minister opened this debate, he said he was not prepared to consider a policy dependent on the suppression of demand. When pressed by my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), he said that this was purely hypothetical and that he did not expect a rise to the sort of level that was suggested in those terms. I think that he was totally wrong. Making some calculations on the back of an envelope, I have worked out that 40 million overseas visitors in the year 2006 staying on average 10 nights is 400 million overseas visitor nights. If 60 per cent. of those are spent in London—and this is a lower percentage than we have at the moment—then 240 million nights will be spent in London, or on average 700,000 tourists in London each day.
If 40 per cent of those nights are spent in hotels—again a low figure—this means 100 million nights in hotels in London. If one divides that by 365 to see how many hotel beds one needs each day, and if one allows for seasonal fluctuations, since demand is higher in the summer than in the winter, and if one allows for domestic requirements, one ends up with a need for around 500,000 hotel beds in London. At present there are fewer than 100,000, and many people think that that is too many. Is it therefore a realistic proposition to plan for airports on the basis of a five-fold expansion of hotels in London in the next 40 years? Where could they be built, and who would work in them?
If that argument is condemned by the Minister as antediluvian, I find that term offensive because I count myself among the more progressive in my party. One cannot resist the pure mathematics of what I am putting forward.

Mr. Ronald Bell: The reflection that passed through my mind was that, if we were to have 40 million visitors in 1991, 20 million of them would stay on as immigrants. Nothing is more certain.

Sir G. Young: I know that my hon. and learned Friend has firm views on that subject, which we can debate on another occasion.
My fear, in a nutshell, is that we shall go on gaily building airports because there is a demand for people to come to

this country, without feeding in the capacity constraints which will start to manifest themselves through the next two or three decades. We need to have a policy for tourism and for airports that strikes a balance between the needs of tourists and the needs of residents. I say this because I believe that there is a saturation level for tourism in a given locality or region and that, if that level is exceeded, the costs begin to outweigh the benefits. These saturation levels may be dictated by the availability of labour, the amount of land suitable for hotel development, the capacity of the roads or, in the case of London, the capacity of the principal tourist attractions.
Those hon. Members who have been in the Palace of Westminster in the mornings this week will understand that pressure on this tourist attraction is increasing very rapidly. If we go ahead with a policy for airports that pays no attention to these saturation levels, we shall end up with a very bad policy. The situation at the Tower of London, at the Changing of the Guard, and at Westminster Abbey is already critical. Is the Minister saying that we can cope with five times that volume of traffic?
The only section in the document "Airport strategy for Great Britain" which relates to this matter is on page 10, and it says:
The first approach, that of failing to meet the demand, attaches a higher value to loss of amenity than it does to the benefits of air travel.
It is a question not of loss of amenity but of the physical capacity of institutions in this country to cope with a demand of that level.

Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although public institutions in London may be overcrowded, they are not overcrowded in Liverpool? Is he further aware that, although £1 million may have been lost at Liverpool Airport, £3 million has been lost at Manchester?

Sir G. Young: The House looks forward to the speech which my hon. Friend is clearly hatching about the advantages of Liverpool. But I do not intend to be diverted from my argument, which is concentrated mainly on the problems of London, where the tourist situation is at its most acute.


Before the Minister can commit himself to an airport policy, he has to commit himself to some traffic estimates, and those traffic estimates must take account of the fall in the birth rate. The other imponderable relates to demand for airports by people from overseas. In that respect, of course, the potential demand is limitless. If it were to be the policy of the Government to go on building airports because people wish to fly to the United Kingdom, they would always build more airports. This policy would not be acceptable for the reasons I have outlined.
It therefore follows that at some point the mere fact that people wish to come here will not of itself justify an investment decision to build an airport. It is this mechanism for making a decision as to when one starts feeding in the constraints in which I am interested. At the moment no such mechanism exists. The Minister does not have the slightest idea what the long-term tourist policy is in terms of numbers. Until he has that figure, he can have no national airports policy.
The proposition which I wish to put to him this evening is that that figure is limited by the capacity, principally relating to London, to accommodate people from overseas and to admit them to our tourist attractions. He had better go away and find out what that figure is. He will be greatly assisted by a publication which I wrote some years ago called "Tourism—Blessing or Blight".
I believe that airports should be planned by the Department of the Environment and not by the Department of Trade, which is preoccupied with other matters because of foreign exchange earnings generated by overseas visitors and is pro airlines and not sensitive to the issues which we have been ventilating this evening.
My constituents would not forgive me if I did not briefly mention the problems of noise in Ealing. I see present in the Chamber the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) with whom I went to see the Minister some months ago. We put squarely to the Minister the strong feelings of people in Ealing on this subject. The argument that we were given in reply was that last year was a freak

year and that this year there would be a marked improvement. I give notice to the Minister that if this year should be another freak year we shall be back on his doorstep and insisting that the nuisance that is suffered by our constituents should be minimised as soon as possible.

Mr. William Molloy: I am sure that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) would agree with me that we have for some time now—for four or five years—been running into freak years with regard to noisy aircraft flying over Ealing.

Sir G. Young: I can endorse that.
There are many other issues that I should like to raise, but time does not permit. One of them is the curious way in which we finance our airports, by using a loophole in Customs regulations that allows people to buy duty-free goods. That accounts for the profits of Heathrow, but I wonder whether it is a suitable way of running our airports—particularly since the EEC intends to do away with duty-free shops.
The Government must put policy for airports in a broader context and do some long-term calculations and some serious thinking on policy before committing themselves finally to a policy for airports.

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) has made the most constructive contribution so far. I agree that it we are to consider seriously the policy for airports we must take into account such considerations as he has mentioned—tourism, transport, environment, the impact on employment and commercial opportunities, and the effect on development in parts of the country where those things are needed.
A curious irony of this debate is that several hon. Members who have spoken from the Back Benches have complained about the disadvantages of having large airports near their constituencies. However, I wish to ventilate the needs of the regions where the vast array of airport facilities do not exist and where there are reasonable grounds for believing that air services are inadequate and that airports have not been sufficiently developed.
Sheffield is probably the only major city in Europe without its own airport and without any airport within striking distance. It is certainly curious that of all the regions in England, Yorkshire and Humberside seem to have been the most neglected in terms of airport facilities.

Mr. Molloy: Does my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) not agree that that was in essence what was said by the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)—that this is a real danger? Perhaps the hon. Member will go on to expose it. If we do not have a proper policy we shall arrive at a situation in which some parts of the country will become richer as a result of air traffic while those people living in the immediate environs of airports will have a lower quality of life.

Mr. Hooley: I shall develop that theme.
The current pattern is one of massive dominance by the London airports. In 1976 the London airports handled 28 million passengers—that is, 70 per cent. of all United Kingdom traffic. Heathrow alone took half of that traffic—20 million passengers—while next down the line were Manchester with 2·3 million passengers, Birmingham with just over 1 million and the Midlands and Leeds-Bradford airports with only 500,000 and 250,000 respectively.
We have a tremendous imbalance in the provision of airports in the United Kingdom and, in the light of what has been said about the immense environmental problems caused by the gigantic airport developments at Gatwick, Heathrow and Stansted, a double service would be rendered by a considered policy of dispersing air traffic more evenly within the United Kingdom.
It is interesting to note from the Department of Trade consultation document that the traditional feeder hubs system—with the hubs being Heathrow and Gatwick—is beginning to break up and that the regional airports are starting to offer a wider network of international services and to play an important part in the holiday charter traffic that has become so popular in the past 10 years.
It is interesting to note that, despite the massive dominance of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted in air passenger

traffic, one-third of all passengers originate from the northern parts of England and there would seem to be a good case for making better provision in scheduled services from the airports in the northern part of the country.
Tourism was the main topic in the speech of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and he was a little simplistic when he suggested that all tourists want to go to hotels. It is becoming more popular to travel abroad to stay with friends or to take a tent on a camping holiday. I do not think that we can say that another 40 million tourists will mean that we shall have to provide another 40 million hotel beds.

Sir George Young: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not misconstrued what I was saying. I said that 40 per cent of visiting nights would be spent in hotels. That is lower than the present percentage and is a realistic estimate.

Mr. Hooley: I take the point that the demand would be there, but the hon. Gentleman's argument was a little simplistic because the pattern of international travel and holiday habits are changing. I am not sure that the problem would be quite as formidable as he suggests. However, the hon. Gentleman made a fair point when he said that there are good grounds, economically and otherwise, for encouraging tourist traffic to be dispersed more widely to places such as Scotland, the North of England and the Yorkshire Dales, even though those tourists will probably visit London at some stage of their visit. Tourism undoubtedly throws a heavy burden on the resources of the South-East and there is inevitably congestion and noise from this great inflow in addition to the established population.
I favour a strategy of diverting air traffic away from the South-East and building up regional air services and regional air services and regional airports. I reject the argument of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson), who seemed to suggest that we had worked on an ad hoc basis so far and could go on in the same way. He even suggested not merely that there was no need for planning but that planning was impossible.

Mr. Parkinson: If the Minister could find a great national strategy plan, no


one would be more pleased than I, but every hon. Member who has spoken in the debate has said that if there is such a plan, Luton or some other place must be excluded and that some aspects cannot be included. We are all in favour of it, but we will not have it applied to our own areas. I do not disagree with the search, but we should not build our expectations around finding it. We have had the objective for a long time and it is no accident that we have not found it.

Mr. Hooley: I think that the accident is the fact that we have had no plan and virtually no desire to plan. That has created the very problems with which we are cursed and of which hon. Members have complained. There was been no strategy. There has been no plan. Consequently there has been this vast mushrooming at certain key points such as Heathrow and Gatwick which is creating all the environmental problems that have been the burden of so many complaints.
It is no good Members of the Opposition saying that we cannot do it and that there is no point in looking for a plan. The burden of the debate so far has been that we must look for it. We must find an alternative strategy. I am not persuaded that it is totally impossible to do that. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South quoted past reports indicating that that is precisely what we should have been doing for some time.
My purpose is to say something about Sheffield, Yorkshire and Humberside. I was a member of the Industrial Advisory Development Committee of Sheffield, which met a fortnight ago, and at which time was spent complaining about the inadequacy of airport facilities for Yorkshire, Humberside and Sheffield. Suggestions were made about what the pattern of development should be over the next 10 years or so. The airports that matter to Sheffield and South Yorkshire are Manchester, East Midlands and Leeds-Bradford.
I am interested to see in the Department of Trade consultation document that the potential for growth given for Manchester is from 2 million to 2½ million, with a possible upward aim of 12 million passengers per year. That for the East Midlands is from about 500,000 to 1½ million natural growth, with a potential,

under certain circumstances, of 10 million. Leeds-Bradford, which is 250,000 now, has a possible growth to 1½ million, but staying at that point and not capable of development beyond that point because of environmental considerations.
Another interesting table at page 31, Part 2 of the consultation document gives figures for "propensity to fly". This is a technical, statistical exercise, trying to work out what the likely demands for passenger traffic will be in the experience of England and the rest of the United Kingdom.
It is interesting to note that the propensity to fly in the Yorkshire and Humberside area is 208 flights per 1,000 population, which puts that area fifth in the list of the economic regions of Britain. The South-East is much higher, being more than double that figure. In looking forward we must allow for the saturation factor. We cannot assume that this propensity to fly within the population of the South-East will increase for ever, for, by definition, that cannot happen. The other regions may well catch up in the demand for air services as the years go by. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that there may well be a substantial growth in air traffic in the Yorkshire and Humberside region.
It is also important, if we are to attract commercial and business enterprises, to realise that the people in charge of enterprises, such as the directors and sales managers, will expect reasonable air services. They will not want to arrive at Heathrow and get tangled up with the miserable business of getting out of the London area once they have alighted from an aeroplane. There is a case for better air service links certainly with Europe and probably further afield.
Freight is a lesser feature of the total air transport problem. Heathrow dominates massively, being for practical purposes the third airport in the country for the handling of freight. But a fair proportion of the freight is generated in the North. Because of the facilities developed at Heathrow, many containers go down the Ml and are shipped from there. There might be a case for developing freight facilities in the North to limit the amount which has to go to the South by road, with all the resulting congestion.
I accept the point in the document, that freight is substantially linked to the


carrying capacity of the wide-bodied aircraft. The document says that about 40 per cent. of freight goes in passenger aircraft and that to that extent the development of freight is linked to the development of passenger services. Nevertheless, all cargo charter operations would lend themselves to some regional diversion. This should be studied with a view to relieving the pressure on the South-East and creating more employment opportunities in other regions.
In the light of these considerations, what is a reasonable strategy for Sheffield and Yorkshire generally? Taking into account the expansion capacity of Manchester, East Midlands and to a much more limited extent Leeds-Bradford, one must regard those as the airports to serve that area until 1990. One must therefore regard Manchester as the major regional international airport for the Yorkshire-Humberside area for the next 15 years. Its potential should be fully developed, with better rail links to Sheffield and other parts of Yorkshire, so that people can get quickly to its international services.
East Midlands Airport is only an hour's drive from Sheffield. It is slightly further from other parts of Yorkshire, but there are very good road connections in the shape of the M1 and the M18. It should be developed fully, particularly for holiday charter flights and European traffic. It is already popular with Sheffield people for holiday charters, and this facility should be developed.
The hazard is that if Birmingham Airport were considerably developed, East Midlands might become downgraded. A strategy for regional airports should include joint scheduled services linking Birmingham and East Midlands, so that the growth potential of the latter is not sacrificed completely to the growth of the former.
There are problems at Leeds-Bradford, because of its nearness to residential areas. People do not want the situation of Heathrow and Gatwick, about which so many complaints have been made. Therefore, development there is bound to be rather less and should concentrate on internal feeder services to Manchester and Heathrow and medium-haul flights.
The consultation document says firmly at page 63:

the Government remain to be convinced of the case for a new airport in the Yorkshire and Humberside Region in the foreseeable future.
If the expansion capacity quoted in the document for Manchester, East Midlands and—to some extent—Leeds-Bradford is correct, one is forced to conclude that that judgment is right, at least up to about 1990. But if there is a great expansion of air services, and if the pressures and objections from the people who live around Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick and so on become more and more urgent, clearly the case for a new international airport in the Yorkshire and Humberside area would become much stronger.
On the figures in the consultation document, I cannot see that situation arising for quite a long time, but there is space in Yorkshire. That is one thing of which we have an abundance. There is a site at Thorne which could be used, and in terms of a long-term strategy this seems to be a reserve position that should be kept well in mind and not lost sight of as air traffic develops.
These are the views I have come to about Yorkshire and Humberside, after looking at the documents. I very much endorse what has been said already. It is not good enough to work on an ad hoc basis, to suppose that just by having an airport here and an airport there, and letting the traffic build up, things will solve themselves. In environmental terms, they will not, and in terms of employment and economic development there is a powerful case for diversion to regional airports.

10.52

Dr. Alan Glyn: I very much agree with what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has said. Successive Governments have failed to take a long-term strategic approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) has stressed the importance of including so many other factores, such as employment, tourism and hotel accommodation, in such a survey.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley that we must remove some of the South-Eastern traffic to other airports, because the present position is not fair. We are taking more than our fair share in the South-East. There are 2 million people in the Heathrow area


who are intimately affected by aircraft noise. We in Windsor and Maidenhead probably have the worst of all flight paths going out of Heathrow. My constituents are thererefore very concerned about aircraft noise. It disrupts their lives. There is no peace in their houses and gardens. The Minister might seriously consider the whole question of the grants for double glazing. There are many areas in which the noise is intolerable but which do not qualify.
We are discussing the matter because of the Government's failure to implement the Maplin plan. Whatever one may think of that—and I was very much in favour of creating an airport and seaport together, with all the advantages that I shall not rehearse now—we are now forced to consider the results of the Government's decision. With the plan, we could have given a promise that within X number of years the burden in the South-East would be relieved. Now, there must be an increase in traffic to other airports, and Heathrow can be no exception.
However, most hon. Members have appreciated that Heathrow is approaching saturation point, and in my opinion from a noise point of view it has already reached it. The planned fourth terminal will increase annual passenger traffic to 38 million. We shall then be in a very difficult position.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) and I are concerned about the fact that there is no public inquiry. An airport can plan and have its plan considered by the authority in whose area it happens to be located. That does not go wide enough. I know that the Minister has taken that point on board. It is the neighbouring constituencies such as my own that are most affected. They are certainly more affected than the planning authority. I recognise that their views have been sought. However, a public inquiry is the least that we can expect given a major addition to the traffic at Heathrow.
What are we being offered? We have been offered the possibility of moving some of the traffic from the South-East. Secondly, a reduction of aircraft noise is sought. The two factors are linked. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has indicated that Bristol

would be glad to have extra traffic. The hon. Gentleman will be popular if he visits my constituency and says that. My constituents will welcome him with open arms. The hon. Gentleman put forward a concrete suggestion, as did the hon. Member for Heeley. There is a case for movement from Heathrow.
If we do not build another airport, we must try to mitigate the noise from the larger aircraft. We shall have to spend money. As has been suggested, it may be necessary to put a premium on noisy aircraft so as to discourage them. I do not know how that will be enforced on foreign aircraft operators. It will be extremely difficult to implement.
There is a case for diversion. When I interrupted the Minister to suggest that some of the noisier aircraft could be diverted for Heathrow I was not being entirely selfish. I was arguing that some of the noisier aircraft are going over one of the most densely populated parts of the country. Surely it would be reasonable to divert some of them to areas in which they would not cause quite so much inconvenience to those living under the flight paths.

Mr. Keith Speed: Is it not the case that the noisier aircraft are very often the older aircraft, which almost inevitably are operated by second-line airlines running charters, which on the whole do not run into and out of Heathrow? Whether the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) likes it or not, among the noisier aircraft are the early BAC 111s. Also included are Caravelles and the early Tridents. These aircraft are now being used for charters. They are using not Heathrow but other airports

Dr. Glyn: That is happening, but there is still a need to ensure that the aircraft coming into Heathrow are, if possible, of the less noisy type. There should be a surcharge, for example, on any aircraft that wants to use Heathrow. Those who found it economic would pay a surcharge.
It is said that communications are adequate given the Piccadilly Line and existing road access. If a fourth terminal or even a fifth is constructed, that will put a severe strain on communications between Heathrow and the centre of London. Those of us who undertake the journey


every day realise that the amount of traffic approaching London is considerable. Clearly, there is a limit. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Heeley nods in agreement. There is a limit to the number of aircraft that can be brought into Heathrow and the number of passengers that can be transported to central London or elsewhere. There is already an enormous traffic block in the Cromwell Road. I accept that the Piccadilly Line will help, but there must be a limit. The Government must impose a limit.
Another valid argument raised by the Heathrow associations concern revenue strategy. As existing airports much depends on a combination of larger aircraft and higher load factors. They wonder whether these two factors have been properly considered by the Government and whether the facts on which they are based are correct.
I have read this document very carefully. I think that all hon. Members agree that there is an enormous problem at Heathrow. We must have better insulation against noise. The Government must spend money towards that end and go much closer into the question of noisy aircraft approaching Heathrow. There is a limit beyond which we cannot go. We have very nearly reached saturation point, not only from the planning point of view but from the point of view of those living under the flight path.
The general opinion is in favour of moving some of the traffic. But why should the South-East take all the burden? It should be phased out to other airports in the region. That is a fair point which I am sure the Government will take into consideration.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I intervene to make one short point. At present London is full of tourists. As we can see, the Public Gallery is crammed with them. They come to this country where they can see that we have no tolls for travelling on the roads, free access to the National Health Service and, when they touch down in their aeroplanes, no landing tax to pay.
I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State about this matter, asking what consideration had been given to the introduction of a landing or departure tax at United

Kingdom airports. I need not have bothered, because his answer was:
no consideration has been given to the introduction of such a tax".
I asked how much would have been raised in each of the past five years if a charge of £2 per passenger had been made. The hon. Gentleman replied: £39 million in 1972, £43 million in 1973, £40 million in 1974, £42 million in 1975 and £45 million in 1976. Those vast sums of money might have been raised by charging a landing or depature tax to visitors to this country or even to our own people.
I then wrote to the Minister and asked:
how many countries in the Western world charge an airport landing tax; which countries they are, and how much they charge per passenger?
Again, I need not have wasted my ink, for the hon. Gentleman replied:
This information is not readily available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
I immediately telephoned the House of Commons Library which provided the information in two minutes at no cost at all. The information contains the statistic that 102 countries charge airport landing taxes. They number amongst them the Benin People's Republic, the British Virgin Islands, Burundi, the Central African Empire, El Salvador, Haiti, Surinam, the Yemen Arab Republic and the Yemen Democratic Republic, to say nothing of the New Hebrides and the Netherlands Antilles. I must confess that I had barely heard of some of the countries. That probably explains why it would have involved a disproportionate cost for the Minister to discover where they were, never mind what they charged. But the list also includes Germany and the United States of America, so we would be in very respectable company if we did impose such a tax.
Of course, while London is full of tourists at this time of the year, we are about to adjourn to go to the grass roots of our constituencies to find out what the English think about these matters. Some of us will go abroad. We shall go in planes which touch down at foreign airports where taxes are charged. The planes will be full of English people who will say "We are mugs. Others raise money by this device. Why on earth do we not do it?"
I ask the Minister, when he replies—I hope that he will forgive me if I am not present when he does—to give a reasoned answer to the question: why should the British taxpayer not be relieved of the burden of £45 million in taxation this year by the simple expedient of imposing an airport tax—a tax which is imposed in 102 other countries in the world?

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Like other hon. Members who have an airport in or near their constituencies, I find this debate is of special interest to me because Uxbridge adjoins Heathrow and both the airport and my constituency are in Hillingdon, the relevant planning authority. Consequently, the future development of the airport is of interest to my constituents—many thousands of whom earn their livings at Heathrow—and to the Hillingdon Council, which has to consider the planning and environmental aspects of any expansion.
I wish to discuss Heathrow and the planning and environmental problems that face the people who live in the Borough of Hillingdon. As the Undersecretary of State said, following the abandonment of the Maplin Airport project, the Secretary of State for Trade made it clear that regardless of the Maplin decision, it would be necessary to expand capacity at Heathrow to about 38 million passengers a year, with the addition of a fourth terminal. Moreover, the consultative document made it clear that in their master plan for Heathrow of November 1972, the BAA envisaged that some time after 1980 it was likely that some additional terminal and associated facilities would be required.
That means at the least that the addition of a fourth terminal on the south side of Heathrow is now imminent. If the extra fourth terminal is provided it will mean that the throughput of 38 million passengers will be achieved by about 1990–13 years from now.
The consultative document stated that the proposals for a fourth terminal would constitute permitted development under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, except for any items that might be carried out by the BAA's tenants. The estimated cost of this development

at 1974–75 prices was £100 million, of which £40 million would be for the new terminal complex.
The consultative document also made plain that provision for passenger capacity beyond 38 million a year would mean expanding the airport terminal into the green belt. That would require the acquisition by the BAA of another 400 acres, including the Perry Oaks sludge disposal works from the Thames Water Authority and land within the proposed Colne Valley Regional Park between Perry Oaks and the proposed line of the M25 motorway.
The General Development Order 1973 would not be immediately applicable to the additional land. The BAA would have to seek planning permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
Whilst the people of Hillingdon may be able to live with an eventual throughput of 38 million passengers a year, they are not prepared to see a fifth terminal designed to accommodate an additional 15 million passengers a year, making a total of 53 million for Heathrow at an extra cost of at least £170 million at 1975 prices.
We in Hillingdon would say that after a fourth terminal, enough is really enough. We would not be willing to tolerate the loss of 400 acres of green belt or to see an encroachment on the Colne Valley Regional Park, which is one of the most interesting and exciting concepts that exist for preserving the environment of West Greater London and and beyond.
I also feel sure that the very idea of a fifth terminal would alarm my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beacons-field (Mr. Bell), who is present this evening.
It is, however, this question of which land at Heathrow constitutes permitted development and which does not that I want to draw to the attention of the House, because it intimately affects my constituency and it is a matter upon which the Hillingdon Council has expressed views recently which are of the greatest possible importance to this debate, as we heard from the Lord President earlier this evening. I want, therefore, to


take a few minutes to tell the House why this is so.
The application by the British Airports Authority to construct the fourth terminal constitutes, according to the consultation document, permitted development. Let me say at the outset that the building of this terminal is supported by Hilling-don Council. However, it is the widely held view that if this expansion is to take place, the new terminal must be constructed in such a way as to avoid further congestion and further problems arising from the present central area.
This view is taken because an additional fourth terminal on the south side of Heathrow, with associated service and ancillary facilities, modifications and improvements to the existing passenger terminal buildings in the central area, together with additional aprons, changes in the road system and expansion of the cargo and maintenance facilities—and more noise—is a massive project which I believe, and certainly my local authority believes, is far beyond the bounds of permitted development as we understand it.
Therefore, because of the size and implications of the project, the Hillingdon Council, together with other affected local authorities, has been a member of the Heathrow Area Working Party, comprised of officers from the Berkshire County Council, the Buckinghamshire County Council, the Greater London Council, the London Borough of Hounslow, the Spelthorne Borough Council and the Surrey County Council. They have carefully studied the impact of future expansion at Heathrow on the surrounding area and its people.
To any hon. Member who has not been fortunate enough to read the second report of the Heathrow Area Working Party and who is interested in the developments that are associated with the expansion of Heathrow, I commend it to his attention because I believe that it is one of the best assessments of the situation that I have had the opportunity to read. It is certainly a very valuable addition to the consultation documents that every hon. Member has been able to see.
It is in the light of the report of this working party, and taking into account the contribution of the airport to both the local and the national economy, that

Hillingdon has agreed that the BAA and the Government be informed that the borough council agrees with the development of the fourth terminal in principle. That is my understanding of the situation. However, I believe that in doing so it has drawn attention to a number of specific points, such as the containment of aircraft noise and the improvement of the traffic infrastructure.
This is a very significant decision and one which in these days, when almost no one wants to hear about new airports or new airport facilities either in or near to his constituency, demands a certain amount of courage. However, I share the concern that has been expressed by my local authority about the effect on the environment, and particularly the effect of noise and pollution and of vortex damage by wide-bodied aircraft. But I am to a great extent reassured by the second report of the working party, from which I should like to quote a very short passage. In relation to noise and environmental impact, the report says,
Heathrow is by far the worst United Kingdom airport in terms of the noise nuisance it creates, not only because of the frequency of flight, but because of the very large population living and working under the flight paths. This situation will persist whether or not there is a fourth terminal. The main prospect of relief is through the introduction of less noisy and larger aircraft. But any such improvement relies on re-renewed efforts to phase out noisy aircraft, which will continue for some years yet.
In its assessment of the noise aspect at Heathrow, the working party comes to this conclusion:
The noise effects of the fourth terminal compared to growth without a fourth terminal are not in our view of critical importance to-its overall assessment.
That is a view expressed by a party of experts who have studied the problem intimately over a considerable period.
I believe that it is important to mention some of these points, on which I hope the Minister will be able to comment.
First, the M25 must be completed, and preferably between Egham and Maple Cross, before the fourth terminal is opened. Secondly, the Hayes bypass should be built by 1985 to cope with increases in general traffic as well as airport-related traffic. It is also vital that the Secretary of State for Transport should undertake that the necessary transport improvements be co-ordinated


with the development of a fourth terminal.
Another vitally important requirement is that the design and landscaping of the fourth terminal and other facilities should be such as to maximise the noise-screening effect of the buildings. I welcome what the Minister said about the new technologies for measuring noise. I hope that they will be applied in relation to the building aspect of the problem.
I also believe that there must be close co-operation between London Transport, British Rail and the British Airports Authority to secure improved rail access to Heathrow. The extension of the Piccadilly line to Heathrow will not, I believe, be sufficient to relieve the added congestion that would be caused by a throughput of 38 million passengers a year.
I hope that it will be possible to give urgent consideration to a British Rail link with Southern Region at Feltham. Another possibility is a Western Region rail link from Hayes or West Drayton area by using the Staines branch line. My own feeling is that the Southern Region link might be the best solution, as Feltham is so near to the site of the proposed fourth terminal.
The House will, I trust, appreciate from what I have said that for the people of Hillingdon and adjacent areas, the implications arising from the building of a fourth terminal are enormous. It is for this reason that Hillingdon, as the local authority concerned with planning, is making an Article 4 direction under the Town and Country General Development Order 1977. This was the direction to which the Leader of the House referred earlier.
As I understand it, the effect of such a direction, if confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Environment, will be to ensure that all development, including permitted development within the Heathrow perimeter, shall not be carried out without specific permission, and to make it necessary to apply to the local planning authority for permission.
I believe that the future of Heathrow is of such importance to Hillingdon, as well as to other adjacent areas, that it would be right for the Secretary of State for the Environment to confirm the

Article 4 direction. I say this because, in making the direction, the council has in mind as the House does the need to consider the fourth terminal as part of a national airport policy and to set a timetable for the banning of non-noise certificated aircraft from Heathrow.
These are vital considerations, because I believe that the Government's strategy of relying on existing airports to handle forecast aid traffic growth to 1980 stands or falls on the assumption that the average number of passengers carried by each aircraft will virtually double from 87 in 1975–76 to 170 by 1990. This is apparently to be achieved by a combination of much larger planes and higher load factors. But how realistic is this assumption? Surely, the most optimistic outlook depends on the rapid introduction of the TriStar, the A300 airbus and other unspecified quieter aircraft. But how many have been ordered, and are the airlines giving the necessary support which will make the transition to wide-bodied aircraft a reality within the time scale we are looking at in connection with the expansion of Heathrow?
To those who would prefer not to see a fourth terminal at Heathrow, I say that the House must also consider whether its denial would so discourage the construction and use of wide-bodied jets that the residents of surrounding areas might well be faced with continuing noise from existing aircraft, notably the Trident, for some years to come.
All these questions are relevant to this matter of an expanded Heathrow. They must be taken into account in granting planning permission for the expansion to proceed. Only if they are and if the people concerned are properly consulted can this giant airport in the midst of West Greater London be expanded in such a way that it has the support of the millions of people who are now and will be affected by its existence.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), in his excellent speech, set out the considerations which relate to his constituency. He will understand if I am less influenced than he quite naturally is by the decision of the Hillingdon Borough Council. I am not at all as sure


that the construction of the fourth terminal will be so harmless to the surrounding population as the Hillingdon Borough Council apparently is. It may be that my hon. Friend as one of my constituents is a little more worried about the prospect of a fourth terminal than he is as the hon. Member for Uxbridge.
I hear with pleasure that the Hillingdon Council has to submit to the Secretary of State an Article 4 direction. I hope that there is no doubt about that, and that it will be confirmed by the Secretary of State. But in any case the Secretary of State can make a direction himself.
As I said at Question Time a few days ago, the fact that an Article 4 direction is made requiring a planning application to be submitted before the terminal can be built does not in itself ensure that there will be a public inquiry. My hon. friend says that the Hillingdon Borough Council agrees in principal with the construction of the fourth terminal. If it makes an Article 4 direction, if the Secretary of State permits it, if the Airports Authority applies for planning consent, and if the Borough Council gives it, there is no room in all that procedure for a public inquiry. My constituents—and I do not mean just my public authorities—are basically determined, as far as they can be determined about it, that there will be a public inquiry. I shall explain what worries us.
I ask the Under-Secretary to say tonight that there will be a public inquiry into the proposal to construct the fourth terminal. That can be brought about in two ways. The best way is that the Secretary of State should call in the planning application for decision by himself, and then order a public inquiry under the Town and Country Planning Acts. Then we should have a proper examination of all these matters. But, as I said at Question Time when I put a Question about this matter, the Secretary of State has full authority to order a public inquiry. Anyone can do that. I can do it. One does not need statutory authority to have a public inquiry. It would not be a public inquiry under the Town and Country Planning Acts, but it would be a public inquiry. If I ordered a public inquiry no one would come, but if the Secretary of State ordered one that would be as good as if it were held under the terms of the Town and Country Planning Acts.
So there is no problem. It is no good saying that the Airports Authority could proceed with building the terminal if the inquiry was of the non-statutory type, because the Airports Authority has to work in close collaboration with the Department of Trade and the Department of the Environment, and therefore that is how it would work. There are these two ways in which a public inquiry can be brought about. Plainly the best is through calling in the planning application, and I hope that that will be done.

Mr. Shersby: Will my hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be possible for there to be a public local inquiry—a notion that I would entirely support—even if the Secretary of State did not call in the planning application and the matter was left to be decided by the local authority? There could still be a local public inquiry at the request of the Minister or through the offices of the local authority itself.

Mr. Bell: As I said, anybody can call a public inquiry. One does not need any authority, one can just call one. It might involve expenditure for the person who calls it, depending on the status of the inquiry and the amount of attention given to it. If a planning authority is going to give planning consent, that is not the best context in which to have a public inquiry. The only satisfactory way of doing it is for the Secretary of State to call in an application for decision.
One consideration that has been mentioned already is that of the number of passengers going through a terminal. As it gets towards the 38 million mark, there will be very severe congestion in the lines of communication. Already the M4 is overcrowded and is becoming a bad entry into London. Any kind of hold-up or impediment on the Hammersmith flyover at the rush hour can cause backing up right back to London Airport. It is as bad as that. As the Minister knows, the M4 comes down to two lanes approaching London, and that always causes congestion. If anything goes wrong—if one single car breaks down—an absolute shambles is created. It is no good thinking that the M4 can take a substantial additional load. It cannot.
This must be given a lot of attention. The M25 unquestionably must be built before the fourth terminal. The M25


will not solve many problems because it is a north-south line of communication, and basically people going from Heathrow are going into London rather than around London.
I was absolutely shattered to get a reply from the Department the other day telling me that it was proposed to hold a public inquiry into the M25 in the spring of 1979. I do not know whether that was a clerical error. If the inquiry is not to be held until the spring of 1979, I cannot see the M25 being built and opened for traffic before the middle of the 1980s. Not only will that have implications for London Airport's fourth terminal but it will have other implications for my constituency. My constituents will be under planning blight at least until the end of 1980 or whenever the result of the public inquiry is known.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will look into this, and see whether the inquiry could be brought forward to next spring. That is late enough.
The second consideration which arises concerns the number of aircraft movements. It is a plausible agument to say that with wide-bodied aircraft there will be more people but fewer aicraft movements and therefore there is a need for a fourth terminal. We have had a lot of argument of that kind before. I am sceptical about it. It was said that 30 per cent. of passenger movements now take place in wide-bodied aircraft—

Mr. Jessel: The figure is 18 per cent. now, according to the Under-Secretary, and it will become 30 per cent. by 1980 and 55 per cent. by 1985. This relates to non-certificated aircraft.

Mr. Bell: What I was going to say is that I am sceptical about the figures beyond 30 per cent. When trans-Atlantic operations are involved, I can understand wide-bodied aircraft taking over. I am more sceptical about how far that process will go on the shorter flights. For example, there is no greater noise nuisance in my constituency than that which comes from the shuttle of Tridents. They are the villians of the peace. I do not see those passengers going into wide-bodied aircraft. It may happen, but it seems highly improbable. I think that there will be an increase in aircraft movements

as a result of the fourth terminal over and above what there would be if there were not a fourth terminal. It is not possible to eliminate a bottleneck without having some effect on the amount of traffic. Therefore, I am sure that there will be more aircraft movements over my constituency.
The third consideration is the money involved. The Under-Secretary of State for Trade, in a speech rich in figures of speech tonight, referred to us as antediluvian if we were not against Maplin and said that Maplin was to be the big bull in the white elephant herd. He referred to the enormous public expenditure which he said was involved with Maplin. The expense which has resulted from not having Maplin is £100 million for a fourth terminal together with the expense of enlarging the lines of communication between Heathrow and London.
There is also the possibility of a fifth terminal, at a cost of £70 million. All of this is in 1975 terms. Since then we have had inflation of between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. Those figures would have to be elevated to take that into account. There is also the enlargement of Stansted and the development of facilities at Luton and Gatwick. The Under-Secretary said, in a phrase which I took down, that we would need to have a careful look at the contribution which existing airports make in the London area.
When we begin to add all these things together, I am not sure that there is any economy in not having Maplin. We are not at the end of this by any means. If we had developed Maplin we would have had a seaport, too. When I hear of the fourth terminal at a cost of £100 million, plus inflation, I have to say that this is yet a further commitment to concentration at Heathrow and the London airports. I am satisfied that when we look for a long-term solution, on both sides of the House the commonly uttered sentiment has been that there has been no such solution brought forward. Piecemeal comments about this and that have been made but no long-term solution has been propounded.
There is one long-term solution, and that is Maplin. There has never been any other long-term solution. For a fourth London airport—although Maplin used to be called the third—Maplin was the only site that made sense, because


it was on the sea. It must be Maplin. I know that it has been said that Maplin cannot be revived now, but it can be and it must be. If that is not done we shall have to put not just 38 million passengers through Heathrow—which is on the boundary of my constituency and surrounded by 2 million Londoners—but 50 million passengers. The Minister must come to terms with that fact.
We have found the Under-Secretary to have great sympathy in these matters. The relationship between the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Minister who represents constituencies around Heathrow is, and has been, excellent. The hon. Gentleman listens, is sympathetic and he wants to help, but when he talks about balance he is speaking in the language of the Department of Trade. We have known for years that it is necessary to find out how much capacity one needs in order to satisfy the demand. One cannot tinker with that. Having put that as an overriding priority, one must then consider how to mitigate the effects on the surounding population.
The Minister has said explicitly tonight that the Government will not consider any aspect of suppressing demand and that the Government will not provide a new London airport. Never mind the long-term forecasts and projections, the Government have decided as a matter of principle that they will not limit demand—so all the traffic must go through Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted. I am not prepared to concede that principle.
We have put up with a good deal too much in the matter of aircraft noise. What people have been asked to put up with is scandalous—all in the interests of the development of the aircraft industry. Human beings have been dragged along behind their own machines. It is no use being able to travel quickly from place to place if each place is dominated by noise. It is said that quieter types of aircraft and broader aircraft are coming along, and that there will be noise-certificated aircraft so that the footprint will shrink.
We are asked what we are worrying about. I am worried because there are large and small villages in my constituency—such as Horton, Colnbrook and Wraysbury—which are not five miles from the end of the runways, where aircraft come over at 500 or 600 feet. When one lives in such villages—like Horton

where my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) lives—it does not matter whether an aircraft flying over at that height is noise-certificated or not. All conversation stops, and one cannot use one's garden, listen to music or enjoy all the ordinary satisfactions of life because everything is displaced by the noise which occurs once a minute with about five to 20 seconds of silence before the next aircraft. It is no use saying that we shall have quieter aircraft soon, because the level of noise is so much above what is tolerable for civilised life that even if that noise is cut by a third nothing has been achieved. Certainly four to five miles away from the airport the difference between noise-certification and other aircraft is immaterial.
The communities in my constituency are not immediately at the end of the runways. The runways end in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) and in other constituencies represented by hon. Members on this side of the House. Hundreds of thousands of people live so close to the ends of runways that nothing less than a diminution of frequency will mean anything to them.
I do not know why we have put up with this noise for so long. It must be that we get into a mental groove of saying that we must not stand in the way of progress. There has been talk of white elephants. Although I have great admiration for its technical achievement, Concorde is the bull in the white elephant herd. We could have virtually completed Maplin with the money that has been spent on Concorde.
I am sure that the Minister sees from what has been said on both sides of the House that, as a matter of fairness, we must have a public inquiry into all the considerations that arise from a fourth terminal at Heathrow.
Night movements concern everyone living around Heathrow. May we have a greater insistence on the silent period at night and may we have that period extended by one hour? There are still too many breaches.
The possibility of full-power take-offs has been mentioned. No one knows the answer to this problem, but my constituents in Horton who are most immediately affected have eventually agreed that they


would not object to a short-term experiment in full-power take-offs to see whether this makes a substantial contribution to the alleviation of noise—provided that they are guaranteed that if the experiment materially increases noise levels near the runways, it will be stopped.
There are other points that I should like to raise, but it is getting late and a number of my hon. Friends are waiting to speak. I end by urging the Minister to take seriously what has been said about the development of Heathrow. I am sure that he will give it careful consideration.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I should remind hon. Members that the debate finishes at 12.59 a.m. The winding-up speeches from the Front Benches will take a total of about 50 minutes. That leaves little time for the three hon. Members who still wish to take part in the debate. We shall have to generate some Concorde-like activity to get through the business.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I appreciate that I shall have to be brief as other hon. Members wish to speak. I should like to draw attention to the problems of Birmingham Airport.
I have been disturbed by hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by the various London airports suggesting that airport traffic should be moved to the regions. That is all right as long as it does not come to Birmingham. I know that we often hear hon. Members saying that it is fine to have an expansion of airports as long as the airports are not in their constituencies, but Birmingham Airport is surrounded by residential areas. About 2½ million people use the airport every year and the CAA airport strategy for Great Britain suggests that it could be as many as 10 million by 1990. That prospect appals me and fills local residents with horror.
This strategy surprised be, because in June 1974 the Civil Aviation Authority arranged for a consultancy firm, Metra Consulting Group, to prepare a document about its airport strategy in the regions. Metra Consulting said that not only should there be no expansion of Birmingham

Airport but there should be a contraction. It suggested that a fresh airport should be built either in North Cheshire or in Tamworth. It offered another alternative of East Midlands Airport at Castle Donnington being expanded.
At present the 150,000 people who five around Birmingham Airport suffer badly. The doctors working in the surgery covering the area near the airport deal with many more cases of nervous breakdown and have to prescribe more tranquilisers than other doctors anywhere else in Birmingham.
The people in that area are already living in a disgraceful environment. I ask the Minister, before he accepts the airport strategy for Great Britain, to visit Birmingham Airport with me and to see these people in their homes so that he may understand the disgracelul state in which they live.
In discussing airport strategy, we have an opportunity of making it clear to the residents living around Birmingham Airport that they need have no fears about a further expansion. We have this opportunity and we must grasp it. Those people have been waiting for a long time. They are worried. I plead with the Minister to give us guidance. We are supposed to live in a civilised society. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said, we are putting machinery first and people second.
When I see my constituents suffer I feel that, as a legislature, we are making grave mistakes. I plead with the Minister to see my constituents who live near the airport before he makes this wrong decision. I am sure that he will change his mind.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beasonsfield (Mr. Bell), who spoke in most moderate terms considering what he and his constituents have to put up with, I mourn mightily for Maplin. It is indeed a great tragedy that Maplin was dispensed with by the Government. The overwhelming evidence was in favour of Maplin. The series of reports and hours of patient inquiry all pointed naturally to our overcrowded island finding the solution by the sea. We must live


today with the financial and social consequences of our neglecting that tremendous opportunity.
We appreciate the patience and understanding of the Ministers responsible. Compliments have been paid to the respective Under-Secretaries of State who have had to deal with the terrible problem of trying to devise a sensible, practical, humane, national airport policy, when the main foundation on which a sensible one could have been built was demolished by their own Government. They are charged with this responsibility. I fear that they will come up with a plan which they will present to us as a national airports policy but which will be no such thing. It will be a policy based on expediency even more than most policies produced by most Governments. That policy will be based on the principle that airports should be allowed to expand at the points of least resistance.
I respect the moderate and restrained attitude adopted by so many hon. Members, who are faced with the possibility of Stansted expanding. It will be expanded. Have no doubt about it. As years go by, Stansted, which should not be allowed to expand, will expand. The people who live in the shadow of London Airport will find that that airport will also expand. Our moderate approach only underlines the point I made earlier. By virtue of being moderate and trying to encourage some restraint, we shall be steamrollered.
However, there are signs that airport travel will not expand as much as some people fear. No doubt President Carter will refer to this matter in due course. He must consider air travel when it comes to cutting back on energy use. Of course we must use airlines. They bring enormous prosperity to my area. Every time I speak on this subject I pay tribute to the work of private entrepreneurs such as Adam Thomson. They fill an important gap, encouraging people to travel and helping in freight movements and package tours. This is a free country.
But in the end, these people and the State airlines must face the fact, as we did with the motor car and urban sprawl, that, in a tight little island, airport de-development will have to be restrained. How can it be done with the minimum

dislocation of the industry, and of those who benefit and suffer from it? Ministers must realise that we do not want to be saddled with all the worst features of expediency, so that in the end those who live in the shadow of airports and those who run airports and airlines do not get simply another inquiry and another complete reversal of policy.
I wish Ministers well in their task and I wish that I could feel more optimistic about their decision. After all, after saying that he welcomed all the discussions which had taken place—I know some of the comments which must have been made to him—the Minister said that the possibility of diversion to regional airports was limited. No discussions were needed to reach that conclusion. Surely people have not been urging that conclusion on him. If the possibility is limited it is because he has decided that it shall be so.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Gentleman is doing less than justice to the discussions. He has selected just one aspect. The burden of the discussions was an investigation of these problems in much greater depth than he suggests.

Mr. Johnson Smith: What I am saying is that, although the Minister, I am sure, went into these matters in great depth and with great patience, at the end of the day he says that the possibility of diversion to the regions is limited. The implication is that nothing will change and that all the reports which came out against the expansion of Stansted and Gatwick will be overthrown. I hope that I am wrong, because the strain should be taken off London. People should not have to suffer indefinitely.
The Minister received me courteously the other day for a discussion of, among other things, aircraft movements at Gatwick. One reason that aircraft have to fly too low over beautiful and supposedly still peaceful countryside is that at normal heights they would collide with increasing numbers of aircraft out of Heathrow. We are at a sort of Clapham Junction of the air in the South-East. There is hardly an area of Sussex and Kent that is not disturbed by the noise from Gatwick or London Airport.
The Under-Secretary says that the possibility of diversion of traffic from London to the regions is limited. But—as my


hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) said, when he so ably put points on which many hon. Members in the area agree—there is a great deal of leisure traffic into and out of the United Kingdom. What proportion of it consists of package tours or chartered aircraft? Those who are on chartered aircraft or package tours have no God-given right to come in and out of the London airports. It does not matter if there is some delay in their taking their holiday through having to journey by train to an outlying region.
What proportion of the traffic using London Airport is freight? How far is it expected that the London airports will expand their freight and cargo handling, so that we shall suffer increased hazard and noise from those who operate aircraft purely for freight purposes?
The Department of Trade recently announced its intention of moving airline operators of wholly chartered services from Heathrow to Gatwick. Does not this pre-empt the consultations now taking place? Increasingly identifying Gatwick with certain types of services in advance of any national airports policy could restrict the options of such a policy.
Another danger stems from the fact that the majority of wholly chartered carriers would therefore be more likely to operate older and noisier types of aircraft, some of them purchased second-hand from the major airlines as they replace their fleets with noise-certificated aircraft. When we already have an exceedingly large proportion of aircraft which are not noise-certificated moving in and out of Gatwick, that will make the problem even worse for those who live within the Gatwick area.
I doubt very much for the reasons I gave earlier, that we shall ever have a proper national airports policy. That does not mean that we do not appreciate the Minister's efforts. If we are to have an awful hotch-potch at the end, it would help if it were not assumed that because the demand exists it must always be expressed at narrow, selected places because they are the points of least resistance. I fear that that is what the main conclusion will be when we see the Government's White Paper, but I hope that the Minister can reassure us.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Steen: What is significant about the debate is the dominance of London Members, which is perhaps understandable. There is an almost total absence of hon. Members of all parties from the rest of the country. I much regret that none of the seven Labour Liverpool Members is here, because the document is of great importance to Liverpool.
Even if my colleagues are not here, including the hon. Member in whose constituency Speke Airport is situated, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), I am glad of the opportunity to air the important subject of Liverpool's airport. As the Minister well knows—because he courteously corresponded with me at great length over a long period, and has seen, with me, representatives of the chamber of commerce, and other interested parties—the airport provides an essential outlet for industrialists on Merseyside. They tell me that they prefer it to Manchester, because they receive a quicker and more personal service. The cargo section is efficiently run, with a minimum of bureaucracy. Size brings with it bureaucracy and delay. The smaller, personal concern of Speke, run as a family business would be run, gives industrialists on Merseyside a great service.
I am sure that the Minister will have that much in mind. It is no good one Government Department talking about action areas, industrial expansion and special help to reduce unemployment when another Department is doing what it can to ensure that the outlet for such expansion is not present.
Speke Airport provides a real service for industrialists on Merseyside. Manchester does and must play a major role in the area, but we must not underestimate the complaints and concern that have been expressed by industrialists on Merseyside when they have used the Manchester cargo section. They have found that they cannot get their goods out as quickly as from Speke. No one would dispute that Manchester has become the long-haul airport. However, it does not follow that Speke should be pushed out of business as a result. That would be a short-sighted view.
Liverpool has a number of outstanding and unique features. First, it has an outstanding safety record. It has the minimum of environmental objectors to the noise and nuisance factors. As has been said so often tonight, noise is the greatest killer of the airport expansion business. At Liverpool there is the great advantage of the flight take-off path being over the Mersey. Speke has lost fewer days than Manchester for fog. More often than not, aircraft that are unable to land at Manchester because of fog are diverted to Liverpool. Perhaps the most remarkable feature is the technically advanced runway, which is up to stage 3 landing facilities. It is as advanced as London Airport in that respect.
It will surprise the hon. Gentleman even more that from 6 o'clock this morning to 5 o'clock in the afternoon there were 24 flight arrivals from Rome, comprising TriStars, 707s, and a whole range of wide-bodied and ordinary bodied aircraft, accommodating over 3,000 passengers who flew into Speke and went out very quickly. Although there are complaints about the rather Victorian terminal building at Speke, 3,500 passengers coming back from Rome were processed in a most efficient and helpful manner due to the efficiency of the workers. When the hon. Gentleman hears complaints about the apron area at Speke being inadequate and the buildings being run-down and useless, he should remember what happened today. He should remember that that could be happening every day. I am told that the morale of the staff was particularly high when it saw the flood of new business coming its way.
In spite of the obvious merits of Speke, I do not wish the Minister to think that I am putting it forward as an alternative to Manchester. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not my view that I should discriminate against Manchester. However, there is a strong view at Speke that the Minister—although he denies it, as do his Department and other public bodies—tends to discriminate against Speke. There was a rumour, as he will remember, that fares would be increased from Liverpool to London but not from Manchester to London, although it is exactly the same distance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) had the audacity

to mention the loss at Liverpool of £1 million. Obviously he did not do sufficient homework to discover that £900,000 was lost by British Airways on its BAC 111 flights to London. That is nearly as much as the amount that the country lost in the running of Liverpool's airport.
The other problem is that landing charges are higher at Liverpool than at Manchester. Most charter operators prefer their aircraft to fly from Manchester than Liverpool because it costs them less. Oil prices are higher on Merseyside than at Manchester. I gather that that is because they use less fuel, but it is a vicious circle. The times of the flights are less convenient from Liverpool. Some people think that British Airways is especially perverse in timing its flights at the most inconvenient times or that it does not plan its flights at all over the weekends other than one on Saturday and Sunday, so that passengers are forced to go to Manchester. The catering is far better from Manchester to London than from Liverpool to London. It is causing concern that the airport is not to be given its chance in future.
However, there is one glow of hope in the airport strategy document. The draftsman felt sufficiently optimistic about the suggestion made by the Merseyside Chamber of Commerce to include it in the report. The document mentions the suggestion that Liverpool and Manchester airports be jointly owned and operated, with air traffic being allocated between the two airports.
The feeling on Merseyside is that there is a great deal of sense in the suggestion that the Manchester and Liverpool airports should be defined on the basis of their joint control at a level above that of the Merseyside and Greater Manchester county authorities. Joint operation, as the Minister will realise, would not harm Manchester's interests but would maximise the under-used facilities at both, and the terminal facilities at Liverpool could be developed at a fraction of the cost of providing an additional runway at Manchester. The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the argument. To put a new runway at Manchester would cost £22 million or £23 million, but the runway at Liverpool is of the highest quality, and a new terminal building, if necessary, would cost only £6 million to £8 million.
Perhaps the Minister, when he considers the matter, will realise that he could operate Manchester and Speke Airports jointly. They would provide one of the best provincial airports in the country. Speke could perhaps be used as the Gat-wick of the North-West, encouraging charter aircraft operators to operate from there and allowing the long-haul flights from Manchester.
I should like to make one further point. This matter was somewhat overlooked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton in his wide-ranging but somewhat biased speech against Speke. Merseyside has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. If Speke were to be run down, it would have a further stab in the back effect on morale and employment opportunities in Liverpool. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that he understands the problems that have been mentioned and will not treat them as superficially as he has done in the past. If he did anything which had the effect of running down Speke Airport, it would have a long-term effect on morale and industrial expansion on Merseyside.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Keith Speed: At this early hour of the morning I rise to wind up what has been an interesting debate. Inevitably, it has been dominated by hon. Members representing the South-East and London constituencies, because that is where the problem is greatest.
I was for a number of years the Member for Meriden and at that time had the vast majority of Birmingham Airport in my constituency. Therefore, I particularly appreciate the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. MacKay).
Many questions have been raised tonight. If the Under-Secretary, in winding up the debate cannot answer them all, we shall understand, but no doubt he will get in touch with hon. Members who have put specific points to him.
Overriding the debate has been the spectre of Maplin. The demise of Maplin has been mourned by many of my hon. Friends, particularly the hon. Members for East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith), Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and Uxbridge

(Mr. Shersby) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell).
Worthy of note—this must be said—has been the complete absence of interests shown by parties other than the two major parties in this House. The Liberals are, of course, running true to form. Last October, when we debated the dissolution of Maplin, they were absent. I find it surprising that a matter of such importance to many constituencies should have been ignored by the other parties.
Throughout the debate there has been a feeling of imbalance. There are those who would go for a strong planning solution. It is fair to point out that that suggestion has come from the Government side. We are wary of that, because we do not believe that any master plan will be able to solve this difficult problem, although we wish the Minister well in trying to achieve it.
It is all very well to call, as hon. Members have called, for the expenditure of more money to solve the problem, but the fact is that there will not be a great deal of surplus money to spend on trying to solve it. I shall have more to say about money later. I do not think that the costings, either in the consultation documents, or indeed, in some of the other aspects of airport development, have been gone into sufficiently or are necessarily sufficiently realistic.
I am attracted by the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) of a landing tax. It would be helpful to have a view from the Government on that suggestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham suggested a differential landing tax, which the French are now considering. I understand that the French impose a higher rate of tax on pornographic films. They clearly believe that the polluter should pay. If the pollution is noise, I am in favour of the polluter paying.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) referred to the problems of the 1990s. The documents go up to 1990. That is only 13 years from now. The Minister will know from his experience in the Department that to build a major road or motorway takes up to 10 years. If we talk of Winchester it takes between 15 and 20 years. That being so, 13 years for consultation and planning to take place is a short period.
I am aware that the longer one goes through the 1980s into the 1990s, the less accurate are the figures for projections. The House is right to show a healthy scepticism, not to say pessimism, about some of the figures. They become more inaccurate the further ahead one projects.
Some difficult decisions will have to be made to sort out the situation up to the year 2,000—which is only 23 years ahead It would be helpful for the House to nave the Government's view on that.
Although much has been said about Maplin, I am surprised that so little has been said about the Channel Tunnel. I declare a constituency interest in that the railway works in my constituency would have done much of the building work and the main line would have run through my constituency. Traffic for the Channel Tunnel could have creamed off a great deal, not only from London but, with the advance passenger train, from the West and from Scotland. The decision to abandon the Channel Tunnel was taken only a few months after the Maplin decision. There is now a vacuum which has not been filled.
One of my hon. Friends mentioned the problems of the shuttle aircraft. They fly to Edinburgh and Glasgow and are about to be extended to Belfast. Discussions are taking place about shuttle services to Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels. That could have an effect upon passenger movements. The aircraft used could be the Tridents, which are being used for the United Kingdom shuttle services. They are noisy.
That is the type of service for which the Channel Tunnel would have catered. It was intended that the tunnel should be open by 1981. That is another negative fact that must be fed into the equation. The 10 million or 20 million people who would have travelled via the tunnel are now adding to the problems of hon. Members' constituents.
Much has been said about a fourth terminal for Heathrow. I believe that I am right in saying that for the last nine years the building of a new runway has required planning permission but that the building of a new terminal, or an extension of an exising terminal, is covered by the General Development Order and planning permission is not required.
I can understand that situation existing 10 or 30 years ago but it is now totally out of date. The problem that faces an airport—whether it is Gatwick or Heathrow—is not that of runway capacity but that of terminal capacity. That is certainly true of Stansted. One could indeed, totally alter the character of a region, a district or an airport by doing things with terminals not affecting runways at all, yet in theory this can all take place without planning permission being necessary. If I have to bear my share of the blame for not noticing this when doing the Under-Secretary's job in the Department of the Environment, I happily accept my share of the blame. However, this situation is not in any way satisfactory.
The Under-Secretary, in opening the debate, talked about full and wide consultation. I accept that. We have to move to a situation in which many major development of terminals, be they at Stansted or Heathrow—or at Birmingham to get it nearer to the railway line, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford, it might be a good idea there ought to be subject to the planning procedures so that the local authorities concerned can give a full view. Any major development of terminals must be the subject of a public inquiry on the basis of justice being seen to be done.

Mr. Jessel: Does my hon. Friend agree that such planning consultation ought to include not only the local authorities that touch the airport or whose territory includes the proposed terminal but also nearby local authorities in whose areas people might be overflown by the additional traffic that the additional terminal capacity makes possible? In other words, as the purpose of a planning permission is to ascertain the interests of people who will be affected, those interests should also include those of people who will be overflown.

Mr. Speed: I have my hon. Friend's point. One could extend the planning laws in ways in which I can see dangers. However, if there were public inquiries in these cases, the problem would solve itself, because even if there had not been proper discussion and a formal or informal examination, as I understand it, any local authority or interested party would be able to go to the public inquiry


and give evidence, in objection or support, which would be published in the inspector's report. That might be a way forward. In my hon. Friend's case, the borough of Richmond upon Thames should have its say at a public inquiry, for which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield was calling.
The question of costs worries me very much. There is a certain amount of information in the consultation document, but the costs therein clearly do not and cannot take account of inflation. Most of us suspect that the costs are very much on the low side. By no means are all the costs fully given, particularly the costs of infrastructure, which in many cases can be as great as if not greater than, the airport costs themselves.
There is one particular example that I want to put to the Under-Secretary. I hope that he will be able to answer the point. If he cannot do so, I hope that he will write to me subsequently. In paragraph 8.36 of the document on the South-East it is stated that there will be railway developments by Southern Region at Gatwick, on the station, which will cost £5 million and will enable the station to cater for 10 million people. Very recently I received a copy of an excellent document from Southern Region. I am sure that the Under-Secretary has had the same document, as we both represent constituencies that are covered by the Southern Region. It is the May edition. It contains a little article about "Growing Gatwick" which says that the cost of the Gatwick Station is now £6 million, and not £5 million as mentioned in the consultation document, and that this is to cater for 7 million passengers and not the 10 million mentioned in the consultation document.
I am not arguing necessarily about the differences in the figures—passengers or money—although they are quite substantial differences. However, where will this investment money come from? Will it come from Southern Region's budget? Again, according to this excellent little news sheet, investment for 1978 is £42 million. It had been planned to be £57 million, but it has been cut back. If of that £42 million about one-seventh is to go on Gatwick Station for the benefit of air travellers, but ironically not for the

benefit of the constituents of my hon. Friends, this means that there will be £6 million less, perhaps, for improving the service to Greenwich or Ashford. That is something about which I am sure the Under Secretary and I would not be terribly happy.
This kind of infrastructure investment, whether it is in railway stations, in roads or whatever, is coming out of a diminished public purse. On the whole, it is not benefiting the local citizens. It is benefiting air travellers. Therefore, one could argue that those in the South-East are having to pay double or treble in various ways. The Under-Secretary will know, as I do, that a great deal of investment is needed in the Southern Region to bring its passenger services up to scratch. If some of this investment is being diverted for airport purposes, it may be justified, but our constituencies are losing out thereby, and it is something that we would wish to know about. Indeed, one questions the whole concept.
Not much has been said about the architecture of airports. The architecture of post-war airports in this country is dreadful, internally and externally. It typifies air travel, which, to me, is a squalid way of travelling and is streets behind railways, cars or going by sea. I hope that, where we have to have improvements or developments of terminals or whatever, we can go for a much higher standard of architecture, something exciting and interesting which at the same time takes into account the problems of passengers, of noise, and of trying to make what for many people is still a scaring experience at least somewhat more soothing and pleasant.
Secondly, there is the question of access, particularly to London Airport. We start with the M25. It would be intolerable if we had the fourth terminal completed before the M25 was completed in that area. The M25 by itself—and it has been given too much stress in the consultative document—will not be the answer to the problems of access to Heathrow. The Piccadilly line extension can hardly be called a rapid transit system, as it will stop at all stations right through to Hammersmith, and the M4 for much of its length is a dual carriageway, has no hard shoulder, and is already grossly overloaded at certain times of the day.
Where is this traffic to be catered for? How much is it intended that the Piccadilly line should do? What about the peak hours, when that line will be taking great numbers of airport employees, apart from passengers? The M4 is grossly overloaded. What effects will there be on it when the M25 comes round? It could be overloaded even more. These are fundamental questions which must be answered before the final decision is taken on extra terminals.
There is also the question of other airports, which I wish we had discussed more. I believe that East Midlands Airport has much more going for it than is said in the consultative document or in the House. It is less than three miles from the main line from St. Pancras through the Midlands to the North, and with high-speed trains running on that line—by the end of the decade, I presume—East Midlands Airport to St. Pancras may be done in an hour, as, indeed, can the journey from Bristol to Paddington be done in just over an hour, and as, indeed, with the high-speed trains on the north-western line, can the journey from Birmingham to Euston be done in an hour. These times are pretty much the same as the central London time to Heathrow or Gatwick.
We should be thinking about this aspect. Instead of thinking just in terms of distance, and not realising the changes in motorways and on British Rail, with its high-speed trains, we should be thinking much more in terms of time. That is what the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) meant when talking about Bristol Airport.
Similarly, when talking of airports in the North, I do not think that there is a strong case for developing one in Yorkshire at the moment because of the reasons advanced in the consultative document. But I think again of Manchester Airport, connected by the M62 across the Pennines and of the East Midlands Airport, connected by the M1.
All this is something that makes a great deal of sense.
However, when we come to Liverpool Speke, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) likens it to Manchester—as Gatwick is to Heathrow. I understand his point. I am sure that he and his friends from the Northwest will understand the fairly powerful

contrary argument in the consultative document. But, having seen Speke, I think that it has something going for it, although I do not go as far as my hon. Friend. It is an airport which should not be ignored.
I am sorry that no Manchester Members have been here to speak because Manchester Airport must be the hub regional airport in the North. It is well developed and it has capacity. It serves a great hinterland. That airport, supplemented by the East Midlands Airport covering the East Midlands, South Yorkshire and Sheffield, and Liverpool airport covering Merseyside, could make a good deal of sense.
A point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beacons-field and the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) is that we have been talking very much about aircraft noise and all the problems that that brings and about the turbulence created by the wide-bodied jets, but there is an additional problem of airport development that we ignore at our peril—and it is largely ignored in the consultative document—and that is the whole question and cost of infrastructure.
Where an airport is developed there must be a great deal of housing to accommodate the extra employees. There are problems of transport, whether road or rail which bring pollution and noise. That was one of the reasons for the Land Compensation Act two or three years ago. There are problems of sewerage and schools. Even if we get 5,000-seater aircraft landing only two or three times a day, if there are more passengers there must be more infrastructure.
The cost of that infrastructue falls largely on the local residents through our system of local government and rating. It amounts almost to taxation without representation, because in many cases the airports are owned by the BAA and the local people have little or no say in their running. They might see their whole district or even region changing through the building of new terminals and so on, and in these circumstances local people may find themselves subsidising airport development.

Mr. Hooley: The construction of transport facilities will often be of motorway or railway, which has been the case


in most of the instances we have been discussing, and none of the cost of that falls on the rates.

Mr. Speed: That is not necessarily so, because not all motorways are trunk roads. If we consider the losses anticipated in cash terms on the Piccadilly line extension to Heathrow, I believe that part of that bill will be picked up by the London ratepayers.
If expansion is to take place it must be accompanied by infrastructure investment. The taxpayer, or, as in the case of the Gatwick area, the ratepayer may have to foot the bill. That factor is often overlooked. It is a question not just of finance but of the changing character of the area.
I agree with every word uttered by the hon. Member for Harlow about Stansted. I am worried that Stansted could expand by a thousand incremental developments. That is a complete denial of democracy. The people in that part of the world have had their public inquiries and they know that there may have to be a limited expansion to remedy the lack of capacity, but the sort of expansion that has been whispered abroad takes us back to the situation of 10 years ago, and is totally undemocratic and alien to our beliefs in this House. Whatever else happens, therefore, I hope that the sort of expansion that has been hinted at will not be supported. It might please the airlines but it would please precious few other persons.
The Minister will have great difficulty in trying to get any sort of regional strategy or policy. I hope that he regards much of what has been said in the House tonight as helpful to him and his officials in trying to determine that policy. I hope that he will secure the co-ordination of all the agencies involved—the Department of Trade, the Department of Transport, the Department of the Environment, British Rail, the local authorities, the airlines, the BAA and the CAA, and so on. The list is almost endless. It is difficult to try to get together all these widely differing bodies with differing interests.
At the end if the day we are dealing with human beings living in their homes, working in the area, and having their leisure there. They are entitled to a civilised

life in the same way as people travelling in aeroplanes. People in the South-East and Manchester, particularly, have put up with a lot of hell in past years, and they are looking for some kind of alleviation. There are limits beyond which this House should not go. I do not regard air travel as an end in itself to which we should always give way.
A combination of carrot, stick and noose is needed by the Government, and, if need be, an understanding that at the end of the day there will be a pretty tight control of the noose. We do not need an expansion of the facilities to match the laissez faire type of demand. That would not be acceptable. We must recognise that in the 1990s or at some time at the end of the day we may still have to build a new green-field or green-water airport.

12.32 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): I start by saying first and foremost that although there have been some criticisms of the delay and uncertainty brought about by the consultative process in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) and I were involved, basically there has been an enormous welcome for the decision to undertake the consultative process.
Both my hon. Friend and I were very keen that this debate should take place, and both were grateful for the many important points—constituency points and other more general points—that have been put to us. I listened with interest to the important issues raised by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). I know that hon. Members will not expect me to attempt to answer all the issues raised in the debate. Some hon. Members who raised constituency points had to leave before the end of the debate, and I shall try to write to those who asked specific questions, in so far as I am in a position to give answers. The other reason why it will not be possible to give answers is that neither my hon. Friend nor I can anticipate the White Paper that will be the conclusion of our study.
I think that the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) and other Members who spoke seemed to be seeking the Holy Grail. The national airports policy that will be published later this year will set the scene for many years to


come. In one sense it will set the scene in describing the parameters in which airport planning will take place.
It is important to get one point clear—the hon. Member for Hertfordshire South seemed confused about this. We are in an area where it is very difficult to make long-term decisions, because of population projections, the propensity to fly, and all kinds of factors, every one of which could be wrong. Secondly, it is difficult because of technical changes. There has been much talk of the development of wide-bodied aircraft and the enormous difference that has made to airport planning. This is one sound reason why we could not possibly achieve a national airport policy to last us for the next 10 or 20 years. The White Paper contained the parameters in which airport planning could be done but, as the years go by, as population projections and other such estimates come along, and as technical changes have their impact on airport planning, we shall have to adapt our planning.
It was because the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South expressed an interest in the doubts that may arise as a consequence of trying to plan for the future that I was surprised that he and some of his hon. Friends raised the issue of Maplin. Maplin surely was an example of trying to plan a long way into the future. It was because of the doubts which the hon. Gentleman expressed that we on the Labour side of the House, and certainly in the Government, did not feel that such a project was practicable. It was in the light of that view that my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, made the decision not to go ahead. How right, in my view, that decision turned out to be.

Mr. Parkinson: I am not quite sure which of us is confused. I have been waiting to hear from the Minister what he thinks I was confused about. I started by saying that a specific decision to build a specific airport, which would deal with the problems of the South-East, was taken by the Conservative Government. Nothing that I have heard from the Minister or his hon. Friend tonight suggests that they have any comparable solution to the specific problem of the South-East, which is the major problem in British aviation.

Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman has described a decision taken by the previous Conservative Government on the basis of a range of estimates about what would happen during the next decade or so. Many of those estimates have now been proved to be erroneous. It is in that light that long-term airport planning, of the kind which some people may be asking for—massive investment of the Maplin type—may not be relevant.
If the hon. Member or others are look-for a national airport policy—or if they think that the Government are looking for a national airport policy—which will describe precisely what airport planning is to be like over the next 10 or 15 years, they will be disappointed, for the reasons I have given. A common criticism of approach to airports policy over the past 15 years has been that airports have been allowed to develop by stealth or, to use the latest jargon, that they have been subject to incrementalism. It is said that there has been a failure to consult or properly to inform those most affected by airport development.
In that connection I was impressed by what the hon. Member for Ashford said about the need to consult. I do not think that it will come as any surprise to the hon. Member to know that most of the deputations that came to see my hon. Friend and I, particularly from local authorities, economic planning councils and such organisations, were asking for a regular system of consultation for planning authorities and similar bodies. They wanted a regular pattern of consultation in airport planning. Because of the enormous implications that arise from the development of airports, that is something we are actively considering as part of the general consideration we are giving to the future of airport planning.
I want to deal with the point that has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) and by other hon. Members about the fourth terminal. The hon. Member for Ashford also raised this issue and he and I had an exchange on this matter during Question Time the other day. It is probably particularly important to deal with this matter now. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) told the House that Hillingdon had made an


Article 4 direction. We in the Department have not been informed of that, but I was interested to hear it.

Mr. Shersby: I said that the Hillingdon Council was making an Article 4 direction. It is my understanding that it will be submitted to the Department next week.

Mr. Barnett: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful for that information.
In general, hon. Members have called into question the extent of the powers of the British Airports Authority under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order. The hon. Member for Ashford felt strongly on that issue. This point has been made by a number of representatives of local authorities who have come to see us at the Department. I acknowledge—and here I agree with the hon. Member for Ashford—that the relevant sections of the GDO were framed at a time when runways alone were seen as the determining factor governing the size and level of use of an airport. With the introduction of larger aircraft, terminal buildings have become developments of greater planning significance. My Department is considering the whole question of the GDO powers of statutory undertakers. Their relevance to airport developments is one of the matters that we shall be examining. I cannot say any more on that for the moment, but the points that have been made on the matter by a number of hon. Members have been noted.
I come to the specific matter of the fourth terminal at Heathrow. Although this development is technically permitted under the GDO, hon. Members will no doubt be aware that the appropriate local planning authorities and the Secretary of State have powers to make a direction under Article 4 of the GDO bringing the development in question under normal planning control. These powers of direction can be exercised by the particular local authority or authorities who could have granted planning permission if a planning application had been required. In the case of those parts of the Heathrow site that are within the London boroughs of Hillingdon and Hounslow this would be the Greater London Council, and for those parts within Surrey it would be the Spelthorne Borough Council.
The making and approval of such a direction would, as I have recently explained in answer to a Question for the hon. and learned Member for Beacons-field, be an essential first step towards a statutory public planning inquiry within the 1971 Act. The Secretary of State would not consider making such a direction himself until we had received the views of these authorities who are statutorily entitled to make one themselves. We expect to have them all soon, judging by what the hon. Member for Uxbridge has told us, but until we do, hon. Members will understand that I cannot, at this stage, comment on the merits of the BAA's proposed development.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) and the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) were worried that consultation involved only those authorities who were planning authorities for the area concerned, while boroughs that would be bound to be affected by a fourth terminal in terms of pressure on the rates and noise overhead would not be consulted. The hon. Member for Twickenham has raised this matter at Question Time and I was also questioned on it by the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle). During Question Time the hon. Members put the point that London boroughs such as Richmond would be greatly affected by this development and ought to be consulted by the BAA. I understand that the BAA have consulted only those local authorities that are statutorily concerned.
Since that Question Time, I have been in touch with the Chairman of the BAA and he has authorised me to say that he will gladly consult all London boroughs that believe they will be affected, provided that the GLC has no objection. He says that he will take part in the consultations if possible and will at least ensure that all boroughs that approach the BAA will have the chance to express their view. The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead is not here, but I shall ask the Chairman whether he will extend a similar facility, if asked, to the borough the hon. Gentleman represents.
There is a good deal of justice in the demands for planning authorities, economic planning councils, the standing conference and other such bodies to be consulted more regularly. The basis upon which this can be done and the


question whether there should be a formal structure are matters that Ministers will need to think out in greater detail, but the general point has been well taken.
I wish to deal with a number of specific points raised in the debate. The hon. Members for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) and East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) referred to the development of Gatwick. The current redevelopment will increase capacity to 16 million passengers, and one of the options in the consultative document is that it should grow to 25 million through the provision of a second terminal. However, there is no plan for that. It is only an option for consideration. If that was not clear, I am pleased to have the opportunity of explaining it.
I was interested in what the hon. Members for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) and East Grinstead (Mr. Johnson Smith) MacKay) said about the environmental effects of Birmingham Airport. The hon. Gentleman may not know that my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Tierney) and Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) brought a large deputation from a number of organisations representing people living all round the airport and they put to us expertly the feelings of local residents. I can assure the hon. Gentlemen that we have been made fully aware of the effects on the people living in the vicinity of Birmingham Airport.
I listened with interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) said about the local authority not having enough resources to bring Lulsgate Airport up to modern requirements. The consultative document recognises that considerable investment would be required to develop Lulsgate into a major airport regional airport and that access would be a problem if the airport underwent a major expansion. This must be a major consideration.
There are doubts about upgrading the airport's status, particularly over the extent to which the catchment area could be widened. These factors are being considered. My hon. Friend referred to Bristol's good infrastructure, but, unfortunately, Lulsgate is on the wrong side of Bristol in relation to some of the roads that he mentioned.

Mr Palmer: The Bristol Lulsgate Airport could be linked fairly easily into the M5 motorway.

Mr. Barnett: Indeed. Certainly all these points will be considered. The claim of the possibility of the Bristol development will be considered among the various possibilities.
It is right to point out some of the difficulties involved in trying to disperse airport development to the regions. The point has been made that 80 per cent. of flights have their beginnings and endings in the South-East of England. Therefore there will always be a certain amount of difficulty.
I take the point that with the development of motorways and the advanced passenger train, the length of time taken in getting from home to airport, or from airport to destination, has been reduced. But it would be wrong to ignore the element of cost involved in surface travel to the airport even though the journey time may have come down to some degree. Nevertheless, there is the problem that a high percentage of journeys now start and end in the South-East of England. Whether there will be a shift in the balance of demand for air travel to other parts of the country remains to be seen. Indeed, whether the demand is for charter flights or scheduled flights we hope that there will be a development, upon that basis, of activity in the regional airports.
One of the inevitable advantages enjoyed by an airport such as Heathrow—and one of the reasons why people who may live in the North or North-East of England or the Midlands will come to Heathrow—is simply the range of destinations that Heathrow is able to serve. Therefore the second consultative document draws attention to the need to concentrate activity in the regions to some degree to allow for a certain amount of interlining and to provide the kind of service which it is possible for an airport to provide if it is serving a reasonably large area. Therefore there are bound to be some difficult decisions to take about the regions, including Manchester and Liverpool. The House will appreciate the issue that I am talking about when I describe some of the decisions that our two Departments must take on airports in the regions.

Mr. Steen: Will the Minister explain what he has in mind when he speaks of the difficult decisions on Manchester and Liverpool?

Mr. Barnett: I do not know whether I should have given way to the hon. Gentleman. He will appreciate that when there is over-provision of airports—I do not refer specifically to those at Liverpool and Manchester—the Government take account of the regional document which indicates that there is advantage in concentrating on certain airports in the regions rather than having a multiplicity of airports competing against one another and not taking advantage of the interlining that can arise as a result of concentrating activity on a number of specific points.
In view of the hour I shall not be able to deal in this speech with all the points that were raised. Even if I had time to do so, the preparation of the White Paper prevents me from giving the answers which in some cases I want to give.
Nevertheless, all the points made will be considered seriously, as will all the written and oral statements made 10 my hon. Friend and myself in working out a national airlines policy, the broad outlines of which we hope to publish in the White Paper in the late summer or early autumn.
This debate has been a useful contribution. We should have been unhappy if hon. Members had not been able to make their comments to help in our consideration. A balance of interest has to be struck between the environment and the employment and industrial and other opportunities which airports bring. Many decisions will be difficult and some unfortunately will not be popular, but I hope that the House can be assured that we shall take our decisions with some courage. Courage will be needed, in the light of some of the things said tonight.

Question, That this House do now adjourn, put and negatived.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

12.56 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill repeals no fewer than 222 whole Acts of Parliament and one whole Church Assembly measure on the ground that they are no longer of practical utility. It also repeals parts of 210 Acts and of four Church Assembly measures. It is based on the Reports of the Law Commission and the Law Commission for Scotland, to whose work I pay tribute.
Many of the measures have exotic titles. Many are Acts of Attainder, one affecting Sir Thomas More. At another time, the House could have had some fun reciting the titles. At this time of night, I shall content myself with the hope that the House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.

12.57 a.m.

Mr. Keith Speed: I welcome the Bill and associate myself with what the Minister has said. My heart sank when I saw that the first Bill to be repealed was the Royal Naval Reserve (Volunteer) Act 1859. As a member of the Reserve, I wondered whether I was to be repealed, too, but I am relieved to know that that is not so. We welcome the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Snape.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

RAF LEUCHARS (MARRIED QUARTERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape.]

1.0 a.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I make no apology for raising a personal problem at this hour of the morning. It concerns an airman, now Corporal, Middleton, who is currently serving with the RAF in Leuchars in Fife, having served in the RAF for more than 12 years.
The story is, briefly, that about 12 months ago Corporal Middleton was moved from Driffield in Yorkshire to Leuchars. He was then a junior technician. When he reached Leuchars he was informed that the next allocation of married quarters was a flat in the new town of Glenrothes, which is in my constituency. In Glenrothes the RAF has the use of 90 flats, let to it by the development corporation. The flats are subject to the various local byelaws, one of which forbids the keeping of pet dogs in the flats.
That in itself hit the Middletons hard. They had had a dog for five years. The children and the whole family loved it. It was clear that if they took the flat they would have to get rid of the dog. It might seem to many people to be a trivial matter, but it was very important to this family. Eventually, after a great deal of heart-searching, they reluctantly accepted the flat although it meant the destruction of the dog.
In addition, I am told by the mother—and this is confirmed by the father—that the children were subjected to all kinds of cruel treatment in and out of school, which greatly disturbed the parents and the children. Mrs. Middleton asserted to me that the elder daughter had to have help from a child guidance psychiatrist as a result of that treatment, and the psychiatrist apparently strongly advised the parents to move away from the flat and the district.
Mr. Middleton thereupon applied for a quarter in the camp at Leuchars. The application was supported by a letter from the child guidance psychiatrist. The airman alleges that because of the strength of his case he was told that the application

would be passed immediately to the wing commander. I do not know the precise delay in reaching that stage, but there was certainly some delay before it reached that high authority.
The cumulative sheer frustration and worry had resulted in Mrs. Middleton walking out on her husband, although I am glad to say that the last time I was there she was back with him. In her absence—again, I am speaking only on the information that was given to me—a welfare officer from the Leuchars base had called at the flat and agreed with the husband that—I quote direct from a letter from the couple:
the district was disgusting and no parent should be expected to bring up children there.
I accordingly wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister about the case on 5th April. His reply, dated 4th May, was in typical, cold, unemotional Civil Service jargon and was signed by him as a fait accompli.
He said:
the occupants of the Glenrothes flats suffer the inconvenience and frustration commonly associated with all blocks of flats.
The letter continued:
There are no plans to discontinue the use of the Glenrothes flats which, after all, enable the airmen to be united with their families.
To show some streak of humanity the RAF was prepared
to provide some measure of compensation.
It seems that after an airman has lived in one of the flats for 18 months he may move to another married quarter as long as he expects to serve for at least another six months at the base at Leuchars. The message seemed to be "Be of good cheer; you have only six months to go and then you will be moved." It was then stated:
it will be possible for the children to acquire another pet.
My secretary, who is a forthright and perceptive character, read the reply. She drafted the further note to the Minister, dated 11th May. On the top of it she typed in red:
I thought I would send him a mild rocket as it was obvious the Department just took bits out of the files.
That was an apt comment on the terms of the letter of 4th May. That is why I decided to pursue the matter in this form.
I can anticipate the Minister's reply. I suppose that it will be a repeat of the


gist of the original letter. No doubt he will say that married quarters are in short supply and that all applicants must take their turn in a queue. I suppose he will say that there is no reason for giving Corporal Middleton, as he now is, preferential treatment because he has brought his Member of Parliament into the case. No doubt he will say that others, too, are suffering the same inconvenience and frustration as the Middletons and that they have not bothered to take up their case with their MP. I understand the force of those arguments, but I do not accept them.
I shall ask the Minister some questions and I hope that he will answer them now, or at least write in reply. They are not complicated or catch questions. I am genuinely seeking information so that these men might be treated more humanely than Corporal Middleton.
First, what care is taken by the RAF to ensure that as far as possible the flats are not allocated to families with young children? Secondly, even if they are families with children, are they regularly visited by welfare officers to ascertain what problems, if any, are being faced by the wives and children? Thirdly, what liaison machinery exists, formal or informal, between the RAF and the development corporation to ensure that if there are problems they are dealt with sympathetically and expeditiously?
I have visited the family on two occasions recently and I have found them to be extremely intelligent and sensible people. I am satisfied that they have a case deserving far more sympathy and attention than it seems to have had hitherto.
I cast no aspersions on the Glenrothes Development Corporation as the housing authority when I say that, like other housing authorities, its experiment in the building of multi-storey flats has scarcely been a glittering success story. But, as RAF personnel in this instance appear to be the chief sufferers, I hope that the Minister will give me an assurance that, in the long term, if not in the short, steps will be taken to get them out of these flats altogether. The experience of living in them for any length of time is bound to affect the happiness of the occupants and, before long, the quality of the airmen's work.
I found this case quite distressing in its way. It is not one of the most horrible of stories that come to my attention as a Member of Parliament, but it is extremely unhappy. I hope that it will be happier very soon.
I do not believe that the treatment that the Middletons think they have experienced—I believe that they have some justification for feeling that they have been unfairly treated—is a very good advertisement for recruitment to the Service. I hope that my hon. Friend will give me a more sympathetic reply than was contained in the letter of 4th May—at least according to the interpretation put upon it by my secretary.

1.12 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), is right; I shall have to repeat some of the comments that I have already put in the letter to which he referred, because the House is entitled to have the full account put on its own record.
I should like to deal with some of the general aspects of our policy on married accomodation and how it is applied at RAF Leuchars as well as with the specific complaints raised by my hon. Friend. I do so because I think that the Service makes a very sincere attempt to be helpful to Service families and recognises the importance of a stable and happy family life in the efficiency of the Service man. But we cannot please everyone all the time. Not only are our resources limited; it needs to be recognised that much also lies outside anyone's control in personal relationships.
RAF Leuchars is a large operational unit and married accommodation is located in four areas; in houses and bungalows on the unit itself, at Anstruther and at Cupar and at a group of 90 flats, to which my hon. Friend referred, which have been leased by the RAF from the Glenrothes Development Corporation.
All this public married accommodation forms a single pool of accommodation which is allocated on a well established points scheme which takes many factors into account. It follows, therefore that someone who has perhaps undertaken an unaccompanied tour overseas and who


has a large family may acquire enough points to be placed ahead of a Service man who has been on the waiting list for a longer period. To protect a man from being continually displaced on the waiting list a number of places at the top of the list—usually one for every 20 quarters—are frozen, and once a man has reached one of those placings his position is secure. There is no deviation from this system, and married accomodation is allocated in strict order of availability according to when the applicant reaches the top of the waiting list.
Corporal Middleton was posted to RAF Leuchars at his own request from RAF Leconfield, where he had a married quarter at nearby Driffield, under a scheme which enables an airman to complete his last tour of duty before discharge in an area of his choice wherever possible. I think that it, in itself, is an illustration of the way in which the Royal Air Force tries to accommodate the wishes of airmen as far as humanly possible. At the time his name came to the top of the list for quarters at RAF Leuchars the only available accommodation was at Glenrothes and one of the flats was therefore offered to him.
Unfortunately, the Glenrothes Development Corporation had been troubled by uncontrolled dogs and, in an effort to reduce the nuisance, the director of housing introduced legislation on 4th March 1976 which required all tenants to make immediate alternative arrangements for their pets. We were able to obtain special dispensation for airmen who moved into flats before 15th March, but the ban applied to all Service families who moved in after that date. Corporal Middleton, therefore, had a difficult decision to make. There was no prospect of a house or bungalow becoming available at Leuchars, Anstruther or Cupar, his family could not remain indefinitely at his previous unit and acceptance of the flat at Glenrothes meant making alternative arrangements for his pet.
I am sure that my hon. Friend shares my concern about pets in flats and about the unreasonable restrictions imposed by some local authorities. I have made representations to my local authority to exercise a sensible and humane policy of allowing animals to continue to live in flats in which they have lived before the change in rules. My hon. Friend will note

that that was done by the development corporation in respect of the aminals that were already with the families on the estate. Corporal Middleton fell outside that arrangement, as he went in after the regulations came into operation. In the event, he decided to part with his dog.
The Glenrothes married accommodation is not entirely popular with Service men. The occupants, many of them with young children suffer from the inconvenience and frustration common to many flat dwellers. But the flats are of a similar size to the two-, three- and four bed-roomed bungalows and houses at the other three sites at RAF Leuchars. They were constructed 10 years ago and they complied with the relevant byelaws.
Many hon. Members will know of the difficulties with which families living in groups of flats have to contend. The Glenrothes site is no exception. There is no way in which these difficulties can be overcome either by my Department or by the Glenrothes Development Corporation. Earlier this month representatives of the RAF, the Property Services Agency and the development corporation carried out a special inspection of the site. There is a lack of playing area for children. The areas for clothes-drying are inadequate and the communal rubbish disposal system is not always used as it should be. In conjunction with the local authorities we are seeing what can be done about this.
There are also problems of anti-social behaviour. Some of those are matters for the police and some can only be solved by those living in the area. There are limits to what the RAF authorities can do, even when service families are involved.
Corporal Middleton's family—and particularly his nine-year-old daughter—found it difficult to settle down in their new environment and the airman asked for an immediate transfer to the Leuchars site. He claimed that his daughter had been bullied at school.
We have made inquiries and we have not been able to find any clear evidence that this happened. No other Service families have complained about bullying. Therefore, it would not be fair to give people preferential treatment on such grounds, however much one may sympathise with family problems of this kind.
Because the accommodation in flats at Glenrothes was unpopular in comparison with the other married quarters, a scheme was devised last year which gives airmen the opportunity to move to other quarters after they have lived at Glenrothes for 18 months. The move could be to the station of Leuchars or, if any airmen expressed a preference for accommodation at the other sites, the requests would be favourably considered.
Since many of the Service men at Glenrothes are in similar circumstances to the Middletons, I cannot give preferential treatment to my hon. Friend's constituent. He referred to the frustration and delay that caused Mrs. Middleton to leave her husband. But Mrs. Middleton said in a letter to my hon. Friend, which he passed on to me, that she had left her husband and he had to take time off work to look after the children. She said that she was sure that they would be moved into a flat if they tried that. I do not think that her moving out was a result of frustration and delay; it appeared to be a deliberate decision to leave her husband and children in the hope that that would bring about a change.
The situation is difficult, and we appreciate the problems of these families. Many of the other Service men on this site have an opportunity of availing themselves of the special arrangements after 18 months' residence. It is surprising that only two of the 36 eligible airmen have elected to move. The reason for

this, I believe, is that they have settled in, their children are quite happy at the schools, and they do not want two moves in the period of their business there.
I am sorry that I must disappoint my hon. Friend, but to take special action would be quite unfair to all the other airmen in those flats, who are settling in and responding to the difficulties that face all flat dwellers and overcoming them, enjoying life and continuing to be good and solid members of the local community. After a few more months, if my hon. Friend's constituent makes an application for a move to one of the sites under the scheme in operation, it will be looked at speedily and favourably in accordance with the scheme. I hope that that will enable Corporal Middleton to complete his RAF service in an environment that he finds congenial.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend has raised this matter tonight as an assiduous and very good local Member of Parliament. This is the sort of thing that we are elected to Parliament to do. But Ministers also have responsibilities, and part of those responsibilities is to ensure that the operation of rules and regulations is fairly applied, and that they are not breached by one family on very slim grounds in situations such as this. Therefore, I regret that I am unable to concede any special treatment for Corporal Middleton or his family.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past One o'clock.